Well in case it wasn't obvious, I'll try to be more clear (and not use any big words)
I AM DISGUSTED BY THE DEATHS OF AMERICANS, BUT THE AMOUNT I AM DISGUSTED IS EQUAL TO THE DISGUST AT THE DEATHS OF IRAQIS OR ANYONE ELSE. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE SHOULD FAVOR AMERICAN LIVES OVER THE LIVES OF IRAQIS BY CALLING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE AMERICAN DEATHS OR CALLING FOR THEM TO COME HOME IMMEDIATELY AT THE EXPENSE OF MANY MORE IRAQI LIVES.
That is certainly a dilemma facing Washington, DC today. It's our mess, they say, our mistake, we need to do right by the Iraqi's, now how do we go about it?
On a purely humanistic scale would you agree, though, especially with your negative view on military service, that the fact that there are a just few people playing God with so many, many of these lives that this is the real issue here? How is it that a few can behold so much power over the masses like this?
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Friday October 29, 2004
The Guardian
About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.
The study, which was carried out in 33 randomly-chosen neighbourhoods of Iraq representative of the entire population, shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq. Before the invasion, most people died of heart attacks, stroke and chronic illness. The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion.
Last night the Lancet medical journal fast-tracked the survey to publication on its website after rapid, but extensive peer review and editing because, said Lancet editor Richard Horton, "of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq". But the findings raised important questions also for the governments of the United Sates and Britain who, said Dr Horton in a commentary, "must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians".
The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers who went to the 988 households in the survey were doctors and all those involved in the research on the ground, says the paper, risked their lives to collect the data. Householders were asked about births and deaths in the 14.6 months before the March 2003 invasion, and births and deaths in the 17.8 months afterwards.
When death certificates were not available, there were good reasons, say the authors. "We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded. Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely for respondents to fabricate deaths," they write.
They found an increase in infant mortality from 29 to 57 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is consistent with the pattern in wars, where women are unable or unwilling to get to hospital to deliver babies, they say. The other increase was in violent death, which was reported in 15 of the 33 clusters studied and which was mostly attributed to airstrikes.
"Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground," write the researchers. Only three of the 61 deaths involved coalition soldiers killing Iraqis with small arms fire. In one case, a 56-year-old man might have been a combatant, they say, in the second a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint and in the third, an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the second two cases, American soldiers apologised to the families.
"The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," they write.
The biggest death toll recorded by the researchers was in Falluja, which registered two-thirds of the violent deaths they found. "In Falluja, 23 households of 52 visited were either temporarily or permanently abandoned. Neighbours interviewed described widespread death in most of the abandoned houses but could not give adequate details for inclusion in the survey," they write.
The researchers criticise the failure of the coalition authorities to attempt to assess for themselves the scale of the civilian casualties.
"US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying 'we don't do body counts'," they write, but occupying armies have responsibilities under the Geneva convention."This survey shows that with modest funds, four weeks and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilan deaths could be obtained."
Why do some people value the lives of Americans over the lives of people from other countries?
(and bear in mind those Americans volunteered to be there)
...
Basically... for the same reason you would value the life of your child over mine. If you had to choose between my death or the death of your child... I will always be on the chopping block, right? You wouldn't LIKE making that decision... but if you HAD to... there's no way in Hell you wil ever convince me that you would spare my life and allow the death of your child.
Nationalism is similar to that. We feel a greater kinship to those we call our own, as the circle widens. Your family comes firts... then, friends.. acquaintances, some co-workers, community, State, country, etc...when you get out there to people in the middle East who have been killing each other for Centuries because one group follows a certain interpretation of their Holy scriptures and the other ones don't... there's no way you are putting their life on equal terms with your kid. No way.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Seventy-five people have been killed and 160 others injured in a double car bombing in Baghdad, Iraqi police say.
The bombers struck a second-hand clothes market popular with the city's poorer residents in the deadliest attack so far this year.
It is also the second major bombing in less than a week. Six days ago, 70 died in an attack on a Baghdad university.
The attacks came as US troops arrived on a mission to boost security in a country racked by sectarian violence.
The 3,200 troops sent to Baghdad are the advance guard of a 21,500-strong deployment ordered by President George Bush earlier this month.
After Monday's explosions, bodies could be seen covered in blue sheeting outside a Baghdad mortuary, while doctors at al-Kindi Hospital worked frantically to save the lives of the badly injured.
The bombs exploded in the Haraj market, which sells second-hand clothing and DVDs, shortly after midday (0900 GMT). Columns of thick smoke immediately covered the area.
The BBC's Mike Wooldridge in Baghdad says the market was popular with the many Baghdad residents on low incomes, and that the area was also a busy transport interchange.
It was choked with traffic at the time, he adds, and there are fears the death toll could yet climb further.
The attacks are seen as highlighting the challenges faced by US forces as they prepare to try to rein in the Sunni and Shia fighters who have been carrying out deadly tit-for-tat attacks.
Previous attempts to stop the killings in the capital have failed, in part, analysts say, because coalition and Iraqi troops have not stayed in an area once insurgents have been cleared.
Under the new plans, once an area is taken, the extra US troops will stay behind, backing up Iraqi forces to hold the area.
Doubts, however, remain as to whether there will be enough extra troops to stabilise a city of more than six million people, while among Baghdad residents there are fears the presence of the troops will simply inspire more violence.
US troops have suffered significant losses in recent days. On Saturday, 25 soldiers were killed - one of the worst days for the American army since the invasion.
Fucked up situation.
wheres your outrage? if this were done from an American bomb you would have 3 threads started demanding retaliation on American streets. Shouldnt Iraqis be held accountable for blowing each other up? or is this also Americans fault?
wheres your outrage? if this were done from an American bomb you would have 3 threads started demanding retaliation on American streets. Shouldnt Iraqis be held accountable for blowing each other up? or is this also Americans fault?
so you make up a number of how many died? ok I got it now. sounds accurate enough to me
You are so silly... nobody knows the number.. Because the United States rules Iraq with massive military might and refuses to provide that information.
What exactly is your point.. How many people would have died if those bombs were dropped on Atlanta - or Denver?
Dio you really belive that a small number of people died? How many lived and worked in Bagdad? a million? two million?
and you find 600,000 to be too high after 4 years of bombardment, civil war, and unchecked crime?
and you find 600,000 to be too high after 4 years of bombardment, civil war, and unchecked crime?
you claim its fact and throw it around as if it is fact. i'm saying its not. can you comprehend how many people that actually is? I dont think you can. or do.
then why are you claiming to know?
depends, Iraq was fully aware an attack was coming. many people had left the city prior to the bombs dropping.
absolutely not. war is horrible, people die. no number is "a small number"
you claim its fact and throw it around as if it is fact. i'm saying its not. can you comprehend how many people that actually is? I dont think you can. or do.
I didn't claim anything was a fact.. I'm pretty sure I said, or whatever number you choose to use - - the number of dead Iraqis is large by any standard..
Its your silly self that took my use of the 600,000 number previously provided as a reasonable estimate - to which I believe, though probably low, a reasonable estimate
100 died on Monday... there have been many months reported to have deaths reported to average that for the entire month...
You are hiding behind our horror in the comfort of knowing we don't know the exact number...
the President of Iraq defied our threats - he protected himself and those he felt essential - but likely most everyone else went back to work - surely he did not anticipate the magnitude of the attack - or he would have done something to prevent it politically or would have hid better.
We devistated that country and have caused the deaths of far too many people - it was far too many a long time ago - and they are still dying every day - and we continue to spew words to the effect that we owe it to them to stay...
our staying is killing Iraqis at some really large rate - somewhere in the 20 - 75 range - every single day... maybe more..
and you want to play little games about who knows the exact number as though that is somehow relevant at all. that is ridiculous
our staying is killing Iraqis at some really large rate - somewhere in the 20 - 75 range - every single day... maybe more..
yea I know. "our staying" is causing all the death. as if the killing will stop if we left tomorrow. according to the article posted earlier, US troops were in route to provide security before this bomb went off. had they gotten their sooner it may not have happened.
yea I know. "our staying" is causing all the death. as if the killing will stop if we left tomorrow. according to the article posted earlier, US troops were in route to provide security before this bomb went off. had they gotten their sooner it may not have happened.
We are the factor that has them angry. We are the once that destroyed their military leaving their country without security. the do not want to play along with our game - and there is no security to stop the criminal element to thrive and create this situation.
We leave and Iraqis will fight for power - someone will win and provide security and a country again.
We are not providing security at all - there is absolutely no security anywhere in Iraq outside the green zone.
yea I know. "our staying" is causing all the death. as if the killing will stop if we left tomorrow. according to the article posted earlier, US troops were in route to provide security before this bomb went off. had they gotten their sooner it may not have happened.
...
U.S. troops en route... from where? Who dialed the 911? Why couldn't Iraqi Forces (Bush/Rumsfeld claim there are 320,000 of them) be dispatched? Were U.S. Forces the closest? If so, how could they have stopped it (the explosion)?
I don't get it... people say, "Oh there will be 100,000 Iraqi deaths if we leave..." there will be 100,000 Iraqi deaths if we stay... albeit, the latter will occur throughout a longer period... but, those fuckers are bent on killing each other, regardless of what we want them to do.
...
Face it we are fucked. Correction... our MILITARY people and their families are fucked. We're at home sitting pretty. All we have to do is say, "I Support The Troops"... and we wash our hands of the entire mess.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
We are the once that destroyed their military leaving their country without security. the do not want to play along with our game - and there is no security to stop the criminal element to thrive and create this situation.
again, you really dont hold Iraqis accountable for their own actions. why not?
I dont know. I got that information from the article....The attacks came as US troops arrived on a mission to boost security in a country racked by sectarian violence.
Why couldn't Iraqi Forces (Bush/Rumsfeld claim there are 320,000 of them) be dispatched? Were U.S. Forces the closest? If so, how could they have stopped it (the explosion)?
I dont know I wasnt there. I also didnt write the article
I don't get it... people say, "Oh there will be 100,000 Iraqi deaths if we leave..." there will be 100,000 Iraqi deaths if we stay... albeit, the latter will occur throughout a longer period... but, those fuckers are bent on killing each other, regardless of what we want them to do.
well at least you didnt blame the US for them killing each other
you really believe that? you believe that a shiite kills a sunni out of spit becuase americans are there?
again, you really dont hold Iraqis accountable for their own actions. why not?
so you support civil war. ok I dont
you sound like you have been there.
I don't support Civil War... We demolished Iraq and left them without government. We can claim it as a state of leave it for someone else to claim. i imagine that you'd agree it belongs to Iraq - they will have to fight to create a government just like absolutely every other government in existance. They have to do so because we distroyed the one they built.
Yes, I believe, in large part - most of the killings are an attempt to ensure that the United States doesn't turn Iraq into the 51st state. They have their differences, but will work them out.
We owe Iraq protection from being occupied by some other country - the only other thing we owe them is the freedom to build their own country.
The civil war is a necessity created by our invasion - we and they have no choice but to live with that -
I dont know. I got that information from the article....The attacks came as US troops arrived on a mission to boost security in a country racked by sectarian violence.
I dont know I wasnt there. I also didnt write the article
well at least you didnt blame the US for them killing each other
...
So, the article referred to the additional forces President Bush has allocated to Iraq. By 'en route', meaning en route from Fort Bragg... no way to stop the bombing.
And it is true... outside of the Green Zone is dangerous. That's why you don't see Club Med vacation packages to Baghdad. Ask the soldiers who have been there... would they wander through the streets and market places during their down time... in their civies? No. They stay in the Green Zone... where it is safer. The increased number needs an updated task. More soldiers doing the same thing is not going to yield any significant results. Bush neds to Declare Combat Operations to commense and take the handcuffs off of our guys and allow the soldiers to be soldiers.
And no... I don't blame American Troops for the car bombs. But, I do claim responsibility of the overall climate on our screwed up military action. The way it is now, we're making Saddam Hussein's Iraq look like Disneyland in comparason... like the Disneyland that didn't let long haired hippies in and had them arrested in the parking lots. We HAVE to own up to our responsibility and role in this mess. To do otherwise is un-American... and basically, being a puss. We broke the shit... we bought it.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
In 2005, 156 policemen died in the line of duty. Should we stop policing the nation so that these needless deaths can be prevented?
You are comparing apples to oranges here. We need the police to protect citizens from harm. They are a necessity, but our invasion/presense in Iraq was not a necessity.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
You are comparing apples to oranges here. We need the police to protect citizens from harm. They are a necessity, but our invasion/presense in Iraq was not a necessity.
Not a necessity according to you. According to Congress, it was a necessity. They overwhelmingly voted in favor of it. My point in that comparison was to point out that just because soldiers are dying doesn't mean we should pack it up and pull out. All of you opposed to the war should start offering up better reasons than troop deaths and hating Bush. Those excuses are weak and easily refuted.
Not a necessity according to you. According to Congress, it was a necessity. They overwhelmingly voted in favor of it. My point in that comparison was to point out that just because soldiers are dying doesn't mean we should pack it up and pull out. All of you opposed to the war should start offering up better reasons than troop deaths and hating Bush. Those excuses are weak and easily refuted.
Well as far as Congress just look at my sig and you will see what I think about them. No we shouldn't pull out because of troop deaths or because Bush is the worst President in modern times. We should pull out because the Iraqi government is unwilling to do what it takes to secure their country and move forward with national reunification. Why should our troops keep dying for a country that has no intention of ending the sectarian violence? I say if the Iraqi government does not make significant progress in reigning in the militias, insurgents, and death squads and putting aside sectarian loyalties in favor of national reunification by the beginning of summer we pack it up and get out. Let them sort their own shit out.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
...
So, the article referred to the additional forces President Bush has allocated to Iraq. By 'en route', meaning en route from Fort Bragg... no way to stop the bombing.
right extra security could have prevented such an attack
. More soldiers doing the same thing is not going to yield any significant results. Bush neds to Declare Combat Operations to commense and take the handcuffs off of our guys and allow the soldiers to be soldiers.
what do you mean? end combat operations and let soldiers be soldiers. I thought soldiers are soldiers when they are in combat. so which is it? its a rhetorical question. I dont need a 500 words cosmo essay
And no... I don't blame American Troops for the car bombs. But, I do claim responsibility of the overall climate on our screwed up military action. The way it is now, we're making Saddam Hussein's Iraq look like Disneyland in comparason... like the Disneyland that didn't let long haired hippies in and had them arrested in the parking lots. We HAVE to own up to our responsibility and role in this mess. To do otherwise is un-American... and basically, being a puss. We broke the shit... we bought it.
so do we stay and fix it or leave? thats a good one. Saddams Iraq like disneyland. what a dumb thing to say. so many people would love to have him back in power. I dont understand that
Comments
That is certainly a dilemma facing Washington, DC today. It's our mess, they say, our mistake, we need to do right by the Iraqi's, now how do we go about it?
On a purely humanistic scale would you agree, though, especially with your negative view on military service, that the fact that there are a just few people playing God with so many, many of these lives that this is the real issue here? How is it that a few can behold so much power over the masses like this?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
If anything it is low..
How many military men do you think were killed during "shock and Awe"? How much colateral damage during that massive bombing campaign?
for starters?
no.. my estimate would be about 50,000 military and a similar number of civilians. total 100,000...
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Friday October 29, 2004
The Guardian
About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.
The study, which was carried out in 33 randomly-chosen neighbourhoods of Iraq representative of the entire population, shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq. Before the invasion, most people died of heart attacks, stroke and chronic illness. The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion.
Last night the Lancet medical journal fast-tracked the survey to publication on its website after rapid, but extensive peer review and editing because, said Lancet editor Richard Horton, "of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq". But the findings raised important questions also for the governments of the United Sates and Britain who, said Dr Horton in a commentary, "must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians".
The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers who went to the 988 households in the survey were doctors and all those involved in the research on the ground, says the paper, risked their lives to collect the data. Householders were asked about births and deaths in the 14.6 months before the March 2003 invasion, and births and deaths in the 17.8 months afterwards.
When death certificates were not available, there were good reasons, say the authors. "We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded. Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely for respondents to fabricate deaths," they write.
They found an increase in infant mortality from 29 to 57 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is consistent with the pattern in wars, where women are unable or unwilling to get to hospital to deliver babies, they say. The other increase was in violent death, which was reported in 15 of the 33 clusters studied and which was mostly attributed to airstrikes.
"Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground," write the researchers. Only three of the 61 deaths involved coalition soldiers killing Iraqis with small arms fire. In one case, a 56-year-old man might have been a combatant, they say, in the second a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint and in the third, an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the second two cases, American soldiers apologised to the families.
"The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," they write.
The biggest death toll recorded by the researchers was in Falluja, which registered two-thirds of the violent deaths they found. "In Falluja, 23 households of 52 visited were either temporarily or permanently abandoned. Neighbours interviewed described widespread death in most of the abandoned houses but could not give adequate details for inclusion in the survey," they write.
The researchers criticise the failure of the coalition authorities to attempt to assess for themselves the scale of the civilian casualties.
"US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying 'we don't do body counts'," they write, but occupying armies have responsibilities under the Geneva convention."This survey shows that with modest funds, four weeks and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilan deaths could be obtained."
Basically... for the same reason you would value the life of your child over mine. If you had to choose between my death or the death of your child... I will always be on the chopping block, right? You wouldn't LIKE making that decision... but if you HAD to... there's no way in Hell you wil ever convince me that you would spare my life and allow the death of your child.
Nationalism is similar to that. We feel a greater kinship to those we call our own, as the circle widens. Your family comes firts... then, friends.. acquaintances, some co-workers, community, State, country, etc...when you get out there to people in the middle East who have been killing each other for Centuries because one group follows a certain interpretation of their Holy scriptures and the other ones don't... there's no way you are putting their life on equal terms with your kid. No way.
Hail, Hail!!!
I saw the bombs exploding on CNN...
My outrage is in my posting this story. Also, note my words 'fucked up situation'. Although the death toll has now risen to over 100.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6286459.stm
You are so silly... nobody knows the number.. Because the United States rules Iraq with massive military might and refuses to provide that information.
What exactly is your point.. How many people would have died if those bombs were dropped on Atlanta - or Denver?
Dio you really belive that a small number of people died? How many lived and worked in Bagdad? a million? two million?
and you find 600,000 to be too high after 4 years of bombardment, civil war, and unchecked crime?
absolutely not. war is horrible, people die. no number is "a small number"
you claim its fact and throw it around as if it is fact. i'm saying its not. can you comprehend how many people that actually is? I dont think you can. or do.
I didn't claim anything was a fact.. I'm pretty sure I said, or whatever number you choose to use - - the number of dead Iraqis is large by any standard..
Its your silly self that took my use of the 600,000 number previously provided as a reasonable estimate - to which I believe, though probably low, a reasonable estimate
100 died on Monday... there have been many months reported to have deaths reported to average that for the entire month...
You are hiding behind our horror in the comfort of knowing we don't know the exact number...
the President of Iraq defied our threats - he protected himself and those he felt essential - but likely most everyone else went back to work - surely he did not anticipate the magnitude of the attack - or he would have done something to prevent it politically or would have hid better.
We devistated that country and have caused the deaths of far too many people - it was far too many a long time ago - and they are still dying every day - and we continue to spew words to the effect that we owe it to them to stay...
our staying is killing Iraqis at some really large rate - somewhere in the 20 - 75 range - every single day... maybe more..
and you want to play little games about who knows the exact number as though that is somehow relevant at all. that is ridiculous
We are the factor that has them angry. We are the once that destroyed their military leaving their country without security. the do not want to play along with our game - and there is no security to stop the criminal element to thrive and create this situation.
We leave and Iraqis will fight for power - someone will win and provide security and a country again.
We are not providing security at all - there is absolutely no security anywhere in Iraq outside the green zone.
We leave and Iraq will handle it.
U.S. troops en route... from where? Who dialed the 911? Why couldn't Iraqi Forces (Bush/Rumsfeld claim there are 320,000 of them) be dispatched? Were U.S. Forces the closest? If so, how could they have stopped it (the explosion)?
I don't get it... people say, "Oh there will be 100,000 Iraqi deaths if we leave..." there will be 100,000 Iraqi deaths if we stay... albeit, the latter will occur throughout a longer period... but, those fuckers are bent on killing each other, regardless of what we want them to do.
...
Face it we are fucked. Correction... our MILITARY people and their families are fucked. We're at home sitting pretty. All we have to do is say, "I Support The Troops"... and we wash our hands of the entire mess.
Hail, Hail!!!
so you support civil war. ok I dont
you sound like you have been there.
I dont know I wasnt there. I also didnt write the article
well at least you didnt blame the US for them killing each other
Yes, I believe, in large part - most of the killings are an attempt to ensure that the United States doesn't turn Iraq into the 51st state. They have their differences, but will work them out.
We owe Iraq protection from being occupied by some other country - the only other thing we owe them is the freedom to build their own country.
The civil war is a necessity created by our invasion - we and they have no choice but to live with that -
So, the article referred to the additional forces President Bush has allocated to Iraq. By 'en route', meaning en route from Fort Bragg... no way to stop the bombing.
And it is true... outside of the Green Zone is dangerous. That's why you don't see Club Med vacation packages to Baghdad. Ask the soldiers who have been there... would they wander through the streets and market places during their down time... in their civies? No. They stay in the Green Zone... where it is safer. The increased number needs an updated task. More soldiers doing the same thing is not going to yield any significant results. Bush neds to Declare Combat Operations to commense and take the handcuffs off of our guys and allow the soldiers to be soldiers.
And no... I don't blame American Troops for the car bombs. But, I do claim responsibility of the overall climate on our screwed up military action. The way it is now, we're making Saddam Hussein's Iraq look like Disneyland in comparason... like the Disneyland that didn't let long haired hippies in and had them arrested in the parking lots. We HAVE to own up to our responsibility and role in this mess. To do otherwise is un-American... and basically, being a puss. We broke the shit... we bought it.
Hail, Hail!!!
You are comparing apples to oranges here. We need the police to protect citizens from harm. They are a necessity, but our invasion/presense in Iraq was not a necessity.
Well as far as Congress just look at my sig and you will see what I think about them. No we shouldn't pull out because of troop deaths or because Bush is the worst President in modern times. We should pull out because the Iraqi government is unwilling to do what it takes to secure their country and move forward with national reunification. Why should our troops keep dying for a country that has no intention of ending the sectarian violence? I say if the Iraqi government does not make significant progress in reigning in the militias, insurgents, and death squads and putting aside sectarian loyalties in favor of national reunification by the beginning of summer we pack it up and get out. Let them sort their own shit out.
yea that or the fact that the country is at war.
what do you mean? end combat operations and let soldiers be soldiers. I thought soldiers are soldiers when they are in combat. so which is it? its a rhetorical question. I dont need a 500 words cosmo essay
so do we stay and fix it or leave? thats a good one. Saddams Iraq like disneyland. what a dumb thing to say. so many people would love to have him back in power. I dont understand that