I agree, but think that is not really the issue here, for 2 reasons.
1. There are numerous brutal regimes in countries around the world that are as bad or worse than Iraq's was. Why are we not fighting wars there? Is that the role you advocate for the US?
2. More importantly, this war was not presented to the american people as a war to make Iraqi people happier....the case was built (and the pre-emptive strike was claimed ot be needed) due to WOMD and terrorism. So effective was W's selling of the war on that basis that most americans actually believe that SH was involved in 9/11, and that we have found WOMD, despite even the Bush adninstration admitting that is not the case. You ask Joe Public if they want to go to war and put our soldiers in harm's way because there is a brutal regime in another country, and the answer is pretty clear. ThAT is why W had to push the WOMD and 9/11 link so hard.
That looks suspiciously similar to the budget assigned for the war against Iraq, a country which hasn't been involved in terrorist acts against America, despite Bush lying and misleading the American people into believing otherwise.
Quote:
Casualties of WOT 60,000 (I have no clue, this is a guess, but based on previous claims I should be close, right?)
cost per casualty 2.8 million
Preventing terrorism seems to be more cost effective to me.
Well, from the skyrocketing numbers of terrorist acts since Bush's "War on Terror" was initiated, it looks as if the WOT and the solely military method of dealing with it is an outright failure. Go stomping around the world in big boots trying to impress the gullible with big firepower isnt going to solve squat. Surprise, surprise. As I said before, if we want to stop terrorism, you look at he causes and conditions that allow it to fester and grow...and as the world's superpower, to work very hard with other nations to address those problems. But that method looks as foreign to Bush as it does to any other rogue who is incapable of diplomacy and shares the same attraction to macho and violent options.
Like i said in earlier posts, (can't remember if it was this thread;
Iraq, with its brutal dictator and self proclaimed America hater SH, vowed revenge on America, following the first golf war, despite it being undisputed as a "world" effort.
9/11 happened and SH and company cheered along with their palestinian terrorist goons. They thus at that time allied themselves with the terrorists in this "war on terror" (You can read WWIII if you like), if only in common joy at the death of innocent Americans. This fact should not be passed over lightly. Any civilized government does not gain pleasure from innocent deaths. Look at what the US and many others did for Iran just this last week, that was an example of how a civilized government reacts to human tragedy even if it applies to a rogue nation.
I am positive that the SH regime cheered the 9/11 attack. I am looking for the quotes right now. Of course some of you will say something about foreign policy and other garbage, but you know SH would jump on any kill US bandwagon.
No, offense but you totally and completely missed the point here.
Plug in the numbers you prefer (I just did a quick google search on the different subjects, nothing extremely thorough), you will find that fighting a preemptive war against those who are deemed a threat, is way more cost effective than allowing terrorist to gather and attack this country.
You are right sammi jo. The US is a big bully who picks on nice guys like SH. If a guy wants to run a regime of rape and torture and murder, it is his own business. All those Iraqis who have died in this war were denied their right to be slowly tortured to death by SH and the fellows.
No, offense but you totally and completely missed the point here.
Plug in the numbers you prefer (I just did a quick google search on the different subjects, nothing extremely thorough), you will find that fighting a preemptive war against those who are deemed a threat, is way more cost effective than allowing terrorist to gather and attack this country.
That was all I was saying.
Yes but if said war was born from an untruth.......
Like i said in earlier posts, (can't remember if it was this thread;
Iraq, with its brutal dictator and self proclaimed America hater SH, vowed revenge on America, following the first golf war, despite it being undisputed as a "world" effort.
9/11 happened and SH and company cheered along with their palestinian terrorist goons. They thus at that time allied themselves with the terrorists in this "war on terror" (You can read WWIII if you like), if only in common joy at the death of innocent Americans. This fact should not be passed over lightly. Any civilized government does not gain pleasure from innocent deaths. Look at what the US and many others did for Iran just this last week, that was an example of how a civilized government reacts to human tragedy even if it applies to a rogue nation.
I am positive that the SH regime cheered the 9/11 attack. I am looking for the quotes right now. Of course some of you will say something about foreign policy and other garbage, but you know SH would jump on any kill US bandwagon.
This reasoning is stretched so thin you can see through it.
I am positive that the SH regime cheered the 9/11 attack. I am looking for the quotes right now. Of course some of you will say something about foreign policy and other garbage, but you know SH would jump on any kill US bandwagon.
And you'd go to war based on this 'feeling' you have too.
Just so you know, while you're looking for your quotes look for the ones where Saddam Hussein offered to send aid to the U.S. because he felt their own search and recovery workers could do a better job in the Trade Center rubble than our own people could do.
You are right sammi jo. The US is a big bully who picks on nice guys like SH.
Well, it was just fine with James Baker, Don Rumsfeld and other top US officials when he was doing his worst raping, torturing and murdering and the rest. 13 years of virtually unconditional support, including a reassurance from the US that (the US) would not intervene if (Iraq) went into Kuwait. Why was SH a good guy for those 13 years, and a bad guy now? This is inconsistent to the point of absurdity.
Quote:
If a guy wants to run a regime of rape and torture and murder, it is his own business. All those Iraqis who have died in this war were denied their right to be slowly tortured to death by SH and the fellows.
Firstly, Beige G3, get it right, learn some facts, and try not to be led by the nose by the Bush admin. and the nanny media.The war against Iraq was NOT, ever, ever in a geological era started because Saddam Hussein ran a regime of rape and torture. The war on Iraq was started because Bush told the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he was saying that he was intending to attack America with them. Now that reason has been exposed for the lies that it is, they are now pushing the "freedom for Iraqis" thing. This "liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime" line is the most flagrant piece of santimonious bullsh¡t in the history of foreign relations....what a piece of fortunate coincidence for Bush that Saddam is out of the picture: the administration is milking it to make it look as if they have "compassion". What BS!!! Why the hell should Bush and his cronies give a flying fvck for the people of Iraq when they don't even give a damn for America's working people, even our own troops and veterans?
Yeah, that's da ticket. Say hello to your 2nd grade classmates for me.
Funny, for someone in second grade I still write better than you. So what's up ? Been playing a lot of Quake lately? Man, these little chickenhawks can be a lot of fun. Lot of fun.
sammi jo, these little chickenhawks can't see beyond their own noses. They're Bush Jr. Republicans before they're Americans, which is scary. I praise your patience and "commitment" to educate them but....
Well since the League of Nations had I think less than 50 nations, it's a bit of a tough comparison. The Allies were comprised of approximately 20 countries.
If you're really trying to say that the U.S. went to war with Iraq with equivalent or greater support than the Allies fought in WWII, they you are being silly. I don't think anyone else will agree with that.
I know you would say exactly that.
Maybe someone with the hard research can comment here.
Let's see:
16 (by my count) nations out 60 (It was 60) = 27% of the nations in the LoN
current coalition = 90+ countries
security counsel members involved in current battle = 5
so 5 out of 15 = 33%
my point is that this is a "world view" issue and not just the US
And you'd go to war based on this 'feeling' you have too.
Just so you know, while you're looking for your quotes look for the ones where Saddam Hussein offered to send aid to the U.S. because he felt their own search and recovery workers could do a better job in the Trade Center rubble than our own people could do.
Doesn't that mean he's our friend?
I will and if I find them I will post them.
So you are saying that US refused help offered?
I don't think they ever made it here, if they were offered.
Comments
Originally posted by majorspunk
Actually I'd line you up against the wall.
PC_KILLAH's just not happy unless he's banned.
Originally posted by BRussell
PC_KILLAH's just not happy unless he's banned.
Whoatttttttttttttt?! Just curious to take some hight measurements.
1. There are numerous brutal regimes in countries around the world that are as bad or worse than Iraq's was. Why are we not fighting wars there? Is that the role you advocate for the US?
2. More importantly, this war was not presented to the american people as a war to make Iraqi people happier....the case was built (and the pre-emptive strike was claimed ot be needed) due to WOMD and terrorism. So effective was W's selling of the war on that basis that most americans actually believe that SH was involved in 9/11, and that we have found WOMD, despite even the Bush adninstration admitting that is not the case. You ask Joe Public if they want to go to war and put our soldiers in harm's way because there is a brutal regime in another country, and the answer is pretty clear. ThAT is why W had to push the WOMD and 9/11 link so hard.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Why don't YOU pay me a visit? Cause you're a little coward that's why.
Yeah, that's da ticket. Say hello to your 2nd grade classmates for me.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Some quick calculations i made:
Cost of 9/11 estimated from 35 Billion to 125 Billion (based on a variaty of views I have read many are much much more, but I am trying to be fair)
link?
Quote:
Casualties of 9/11 3030
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_det...81-1-9,00.html
2752 is the latest figure.
Quote:
Cost of war on Terrror 168 Billion
Oh dear....haven't we got this through yet?
That looks suspiciously similar to the budget assigned for the war against Iraq, a country which hasn't been involved in terrorist acts against America, despite Bush lying and misleading the American people into believing otherwise.
Quote:
Casualties of WOT 60,000 (I have no clue, this is a guess, but based on previous claims I should be close, right?)
cost per casualty 2.8 million
Preventing terrorism seems to be more cost effective to me.
Well, from the skyrocketing numbers of terrorist acts since Bush's "War on Terror" was initiated, it looks as if the WOT and the solely military method of dealing with it is an outright failure. Go stomping around the world in big boots trying to impress the gullible with big firepower isnt going to solve squat. Surprise, surprise. As I said before, if we want to stop terrorism, you look at he causes and conditions that allow it to fester and grow...and as the world's superpower, to work very hard with other nations to address those problems. But that method looks as foreign to Bush as it does to any other rogue who is incapable of diplomacy and shares the same attraction to macho and violent options.
Which will ensure the cycle continues.
Originally posted by bunge
But what does that have to do with Iraq?
Like i said in earlier posts, (can't remember if it was this thread;
Iraq, with its brutal dictator and self proclaimed America hater SH, vowed revenge on America, following the first golf war, despite it being undisputed as a "world" effort.
9/11 happened and SH and company cheered along with their palestinian terrorist goons. They thus at that time allied themselves with the terrorists in this "war on terror" (You can read WWIII if you like), if only in common joy at the death of innocent Americans. This fact should not be passed over lightly. Any civilized government does not gain pleasure from innocent deaths. Look at what the US and many others did for Iran just this last week, that was an example of how a civilized government reacts to human tragedy even if it applies to a rogue nation.
I am positive that the SH regime cheered the 9/11 attack. I am looking for the quotes right now. Of course some of you will say something about foreign policy and other garbage, but you know SH would jump on any kill US bandwagon.
Plug in the numbers you prefer (I just did a quick google search on the different subjects, nothing extremely thorough), you will find that fighting a preemptive war against those who are deemed a threat, is way more cost effective than allowing terrorist to gather and attack this country.
That was all I was saying.
Originally posted by NaplesX
No, offense but you totally and completely missed the point here.
Plug in the numbers you prefer (I just did a quick google search on the different subjects, nothing extremely thorough), you will find that fighting a preemptive war against those who are deemed a threat, is way more cost effective than allowing terrorist to gather and attack this country.
That was all I was saying.
Yes but if said war was born from an untruth.......
Originally posted by NaplesX
Like i said in earlier posts, (can't remember if it was this thread;
Iraq, with its brutal dictator and self proclaimed America hater SH, vowed revenge on America, following the first golf war, despite it being undisputed as a "world" effort.
9/11 happened and SH and company cheered along with their palestinian terrorist goons. They thus at that time allied themselves with the terrorists in this "war on terror" (You can read WWIII if you like), if only in common joy at the death of innocent Americans. This fact should not be passed over lightly. Any civilized government does not gain pleasure from innocent deaths. Look at what the US and many others did for Iran just this last week, that was an example of how a civilized government reacts to human tragedy even if it applies to a rogue nation.
I am positive that the SH regime cheered the 9/11 attack. I am looking for the quotes right now. Of course some of you will say something about foreign policy and other garbage, but you know SH would jump on any kill US bandwagon.
This reasoning is stretched so thin you can see through it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am positive that the SH regime cheered the 9/11 attack. I am looking for the quotes right now. Of course some of you will say something about foreign policy and other garbage, but you know SH would jump on any kill US bandwagon.
And you'd go to war based on this 'feeling' you have too.
Just so you know, while you're looking for your quotes look for the ones where Saddam Hussein offered to send aid to the U.S. because he felt their own search and recovery workers could do a better job in the Trade Center rubble than our own people could do.
Doesn't that mean he's our friend?
Originally posted by Beige_G3
You are right sammi jo. The US is a big bully who picks on nice guys like SH.
Well, it was just fine with James Baker, Don Rumsfeld and other top US officials when he was doing his worst raping, torturing and murdering and the rest. 13 years of virtually unconditional support, including a reassurance from the US that (the US) would not intervene if (Iraq) went into Kuwait. Why was SH a good guy for those 13 years, and a bad guy now? This is inconsistent to the point of absurdity.
Quote:
If a guy wants to run a regime of rape and torture and murder, it is his own business. All those Iraqis who have died in this war were denied their right to be slowly tortured to death by SH and the fellows.
Firstly, Beige G3, get it right, learn some facts, and try not to be led by the nose by the Bush admin. and the nanny media.The war against Iraq was NOT, ever, ever in a geological era started because Saddam Hussein ran a regime of rape and torture. The war on Iraq was started because Bush told the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he was saying that he was intending to attack America with them. Now that reason has been exposed for the lies that it is, they are now pushing the "freedom for Iraqis" thing. This "liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime" line is the most flagrant piece of santimonious bullsh¡t in the history of foreign relations....what a piece of fortunate coincidence for Bush that Saddam is out of the picture: the administration is milking it to make it look as if they have "compassion". What BS!!! Why the hell should Bush and his cronies give a flying fvck for the people of Iraq when they don't even give a damn for America's working people, even our own troops and veterans?
Originally posted by majormistake
Yeah, that's da ticket. Say hello to your 2nd grade classmates for me.
Funny, for someone in second grade I still write better than you.
sammi jo, these little chickenhawks can't see beyond their own noses. They're Bush Jr. Republicans before they're Americans, which is scary. I praise your patience and "commitment" to educate them but....
I expect more for 2004 than the way this thread evolve.
Originally posted by Scott
Hey! How dare you question our patriotism!
Originally posted by bunge
Well since the League of Nations had I think less than 50 nations, it's a bit of a tough comparison. The Allies were comprised of approximately 20 countries.
If you're really trying to say that the U.S. went to war with Iraq with equivalent or greater support than the Allies fought in WWII, they you are being silly. I don't think anyone else will agree with that.
I know you would say exactly that.
Maybe someone with the hard research can comment here.
Let's see:
16 (by my count) nations out 60 (It was 60) = 27% of the nations in the LoN
current coalition = 90+ countries
security counsel members involved in current battle = 5
so 5 out of 15 = 33%
my point is that this is a "world view" issue and not just the US
Originally posted by bunge
And you'd go to war based on this 'feeling' you have too.
Just so you know, while you're looking for your quotes look for the ones where Saddam Hussein offered to send aid to the U.S. because he felt their own search and recovery workers could do a better job in the Trade Center rubble than our own people could do.
Doesn't that mean he's our friend?
I will and if I find them I will post them.
So you are saying that US refused help offered?
I don't think they ever made it here, if they were offered.
Anyone know about this subject?