We had more military casualties during the Clinton than duirng Bush

[SEF]

1941-1945: 407,000 US dead

US Civil War: 618,000 US dead

Vietnam: 59,000 US dead

Iraq: 3,830 US dead

I always find it amusing when lib defeatists claim we can't win this war.

Would they rather go back in time and fight 112 Nazi infantry and armored divisions- or be winning in Iraq against a few thousand terrorists armed with AK-47s and IEDs?

I always find it amusing that wingnuts have to use strawmen to make an idiotic point.

[Predicto]

Well you sure do not put fires out by ignoring them until they become a raging inferno. If you consider preemptive action = gasoline then I would say history would suggest a couple tanks.

No, I consider stupid and misdirected preemptive action against the wrong country to equal gasoline. Afganistan was the fire extinguisher. Iraq was the gas tanker.

Oh and try saying "72 million people dead during World War 2" with a straight face while complaining about our administrations actions.

Did you even bother to read my earlier posts?

Does that fact that 72 million people died during WWII somehow immunize all future wars from criticism unless they manage to reach that august figure?

Christ, if Bill Clinton had started a stupid war in 1993 against the wrong country against the advice of his own people and blown a trillion bucks and a few thousand soldiers' lives in the process, you will still be posting new threads about it every day in this forum.

[Predicto]

1941-1945: 407,000 US dead

US Civil War: 618,000 US dead

Vietnam: 59,000 US dead

Iraq: 3,830 US dead

I always find it amusing when lib defeatists claim we can't win this war.

Would they rather go back in time and fight 112 Nazi infantry and armored divisions- or be winning in Iraq against a few thousand terrorists armed with AK-47s and IEDs?

Thanks for joining us, and for changing the subject for us.

[JMS]

Well you sure do not put fires out by ignoring them until they become a raging inferno. If you consider preemptive action = gasoline then I would say history would suggest a couple tanks.

Oh and try saying "72 million people dead during World War 2" with a straight face while complaining about our administrations actions.

A more appropriate analogy is, when you're car runs out of gasoline do you usually fill up your wife's tank?

As for WWII statistics your argument is not reasonable. You are saying that the comparatively low(WWII vs Iraq) American deaths and casualty rates justify the war? Or somehow diminish criticism of this war? One could use the same argument if Bush decided to invade Canada or Great Britain. We certainly would sustain fewer casualties in either of those wars then in WWII? It's not logical, it's rhetoric.

Faked up incomplete casualty numbers(for Iraq) do not justify this war, nor do they dilute or even address the criticism of this war. The low casualty numbers are a testament to the financial sacrifices and commitment this country has endured to grow and maintain such a professional capable military across the last six decades. It is in no way a reflection on the righteousness of a policy of wars of aggression. Much less this war of aggression in Iraq.

[SkinsFanAnt]

Well okay, my point is that if you hear the media and the media says its nothing but bloodsheed, but if you look at the statistics it is actually a low casualty war. But the media doesn't want to deliver that message. So I cmpare to the Clinton and show taht there were just as many casualties there but you neverr heard the media blame the Clinton. Just Bush. I just watned to point taht out.

Dude..that is so full of ****. Downplaying Iraq as a "Low casualty war" IS complete and utter 100% USDA Grade ANGUS BULLSHT. Ask the mothers, wives, husbands, and fathers who have lossed someone in Iraq and tell them its actually a 'low casualty war'. Ask the Iraqi's if it's really a 'low casualty war'. Get your pitiful statistics out of here.

You're horrendous pitiful attempt at scapegoating Clinton while trying to downplay Bushy's ineptitude, irresponsibility, negligence, and treachery, is not going to work except on the other dumbsheets like yourself.

[JMS]

Dude..that is so full of ****. Downplaying Iraq as a "Low casualty war" IS complete and utter 100% USDA Grade ANGUS BULLSHT. Ask the mothers, wives, husbands, and fathers who have lossed someone in Iraq and tell them its actually a 'low casualty war'. Ask the Iraqi's if it's really a 'low casualty war'. Get your pitiful statistics out of here.

You're horrendous pitiful attempt at scapegoating Clinton while trying to downplay Bushy's ineptitude, irresponsibility, negligence, and treachery, is not going to work except on the other dumbsheets like yourself.

Iraq civilians loses due to secular violence has averages 60 deaths a day for the entire war. If you account for relative size differences of the US and Iraq that would be equivalent to 1000 American lives a day or two 911's a week over the duration of the war.

Low American deaths don't mean low casualties or low deaths.

[portisizzle]

A more appropriate analogy is, when you're car runs out of gasoline do you usually fill up your wife's tank?

As for WWII statistics your argument is not reasonable. You are saying that the comparatively low deaths and casualty rates justify the war? Or somehow diminish criticism of this war? One could use the same argument if Bush decided to invade Canada or Great Britain. We certainly would sustain fewer casualties in either of those wars then in WWII? It's not logical, it's rhetoric.

Faked up incomplete casualty numbers do not justify this war, nor do they dilute or even address the criticism of this war. The low casualty numbers are a testament to the financial sacrifices and commitment this country has endured to grow and maintain such a professional capable military across the last six decades. It is in no way a reflection on the righteousness of a policy of wars of aggression. Much less this war of aggression in Iraq.

History will show the war as the classic case study in preemptive action.

If a major conflict with Middle East countries is averted then it will be deemed a success.

If this war does not stop a major escalation (which has been happening for decades) then the administration will be judged harshly.

But in the end history forced this action as we could not afford to openly and knowingly allow the Middle East to go nuclear. The cost of being wrong on this singular point would dwarf the price we are paying today.

[skinny21]

1941-1945: 407,000 US dead

US Civil War: 618,000 US dead

Vietnam: 59,000 US dead

Iraq: 3,830 US dead

I always find it amusing when lib defeatists claim we can't win this war.

Would they rather go back in time and fight 112 Nazi infantry and armored divisions- or be winning in Iraq against a few thousand terrorists armed with AK-47s and IEDs?

Up 'til now this seemed to be debate between the "I believe what I read" crowd and the "I use logic to deduce that these number's are probably skewed" crowd. Looks like you're shooting for the "lib defeatists" vs. the sham-conservative warmongers".

As a side note, how is this the second time it has been pointed out that worse has happened in the past so no there's to be no b****** and moaning now people?

[skinny21]

History will show the war as the classic case study in preemptive action.

If a major conflict with Middle East countries is averted then it will be deemed a success.

If this war does not stop a major escalation (which has been happening for decades) then the administration will be judged harshly.

But in the end history forced this action as we could not afford to openly and knowingly allow the Middle East to go nuclear. The cost of being wrong on this singular point would dwarf the price we are paying today.

I'm taking from this post that you believe we went into Iraq because of their nuclear capabilities... please tell me I'm reading you wrong.

[JMS]

History will show the war as the classic case study in preemptive action.

There is no such animal. American history has no example of a major war preemptive action taken to avert a future greater war. The only major war of aggression in America's history one could point too would be the Mexican American war of the 1840's which is largely remembered in history as a land grab against an vastly inferior enemy which never threatened the United States.

( The spanish American war was also a land grab, but it wasn't sold to the American people as a war of agression; rather it was sold to the American people as a response to Spanish agression in the western hemisphere. Remember the Maine!! )

If a major conflict with Middle East countries is averted then it will be deemed a success.

By that logic any future short of WWII involving the ME justifies Iraq. One could use that logic to justify the immediate invasion of Canada and Great Britain because that action would almost certainly not result in a WWII?. It is not a logical or reasoned argument. It's an argument painfully bent around the current conflict which unravels when examined.

War's of agression have been poor anti war instriments for 400 years as Kissenger pointed out in his famous pro's and cons of Iraq editorial in the NY times before the war. The only reason Kissinger, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearl and the rest of them abandoned 400 years of president was because of Nukes.

Bush, Rice told us we could not wait for mush room clouds over Washinton mobilize or forces. Only Iraq had no nukes, nor did they have an active nuclear program.

If this war does not stop a major escalation (which has been happening for decades) then the administration will be judged harshly.

What major escalation are you talking about? The only country escalating their military expenditures is the United States. Iraq was not a raising threat to this country, it was a diminishing threat. Afghanistan wasn't much of a military threat at all. Who and where is this escalating threat you are referring too?

Terrorism? terrorism is up like 300% since the Iraq war. If terrorism was our big enemy Iraq has only helped them recruit and raise money.

But in the end history forced this action as we could not afford to openly and knowingly allow the Middle East to go nuclear. The cost of being wrong on this singular point was/is much higher than the price we are paying today.

The middle east is nuclear. Israel has had the bomb for decades and currently has their own triad ( land missiles, subs, and bombers). Likewise Pakistan also has the bomb. This war has ensured Iran will pull out all the stops to acquire the bomb. After all, this war has shown that enemies( axis of evil countries) who have the bomb, North Korea; are negotiated with and make money. Axis of evil countries without the bomb are invaded.

[portisizzle]

I'm taking from this post that you believe we went into Iraq because of their nuclear capabilities... please tell me I'm reading you wrong.

Before. And why are you playing dumb? Why do you think IAEA was in the country before we invaded? To play tiddly winks?

[skinny21]

excellent points jms

[portisizzle]

JMS I would love to get into a multi-quote debate back and forth with you......but instead I will say this. History is being written as we speak in that part of the world. If you think pulling the Middle East out of the dark ages was going to take 22 months than you are mistaken. Expect this part of our history to play out for decades. And thank whomever you thank for the fact that the US chose to fight before they became a legitimate threat. And while history has no major examples of preemptive action my original point was this...That this war will be the defining case study FOR or AGAINST preemptive action.

In my opinion we had no choice but to engage the Middle East now rather than later. Again my opinion.

[skinny21]

some other viewpoints - I believe this is from late '05

http://www.lewrockwell.com/zeese/zeese19.html

Mark Benjamin, UPI Investigations Editor, who has been closely following the hidden casualties of the Iraq War says: "what that number does not include is the number of soldiers who are wounded or ill, or injured in operations that are not directly due to the bullets and bombs of the insurgents. So, for example, as of mid-September, if you take actually Afghanistan and Iraq together, there were 17,000 soldiers who were injured or ill enough to be put on airplanes and flown out of theater, and none of those casualties, and I call them casualties because they fit the Pentagon's definition of casualties, none of those casualties appear on any public casualty lists."

[Larry]

The real point we are missing here is that we take these actions today so that we may not see another World War casualty count tomorrow.

Yeah, cause everybody knows that if we hadn't invaded Iraq when we did then Saddam would have conquered Russia, Poland, and France by now.

Why don't you compare Iraq to the US Civil War? It had even bigger casualties, and it's about as relevant.

[Predicto]

History will show the war as the classic case study in preemptive action.

If a major conflict with Middle East countries is averted then it will be deemed a success.

History will show that my switch from Diet Coke to Diet Pepsi is the classic case study in preemptive action.

If a major conflict with Middle East countries is averted, I will take all the credit for that success due to my cola-choosing wisdom.

[Larry]

JMS I would love to get into a multi-quote debate back and forth with you......but instead I will say this. History is being written as we speak in that part of the world. If you think pulling the Middle East out of the dark ages was going to take 22 months than you are mistaken. Expect this part of our history to play out for decades. And thank whomever you thank for the fact that the US chose to fight before they became a legitimate threat. And while history has no major examples of preemptive action my original point was this...That this war will be the defining case study FOR or AGAINST preemptive action.

Yeah, cause fighting wars against legitimate threats is so 20th century.

[Predicto]

In my opinion we had no choice but to engage the Middle East now rather than later. Again my opinion.

I see. The "Middle East" is one big country, and invading Iraq somehow "engages" all of them. Righto.

[portisizzle]

History will show that my switch from Diet Coke to Diet Pepsi is the classic case study in preemptive action.

If a major conflict with Middle East countries is averted, I will take all the credit for that success due to my cola-choosing wisdom.

The advantage of being a monday morning quarterback.

http://www.nci.org/new/iraq-ib.htm

It is prudent to assume that there is a small, well-concealed nuclear weapons program in Iraq, possibly with fully developed components suitable for rapid assembly into one or more workable weapons if the requisite fissile material (highly enriched uranium or plutonium) were acquired. IAEA officials have admitted that it would be difficult if not impossible to detect the covert acquisition by Iraq of the small amounts of fissile material needed for a few bombs, and the Agencys ongoing monitoring and verification plan is predicated on the assumption that Iraq retains the technical capability to exploit, for nuclear weapons purposes, any relevant material to which it might gain access.[19] If Iraq has been able to smuggle in the needed material from, say, Russia or another former Soviet republic, the nuclear threat could be quite real. Any future role for the IAEA in Iraq should be considered in the light of lessons learned from past failures.

[portisizzle]

I see. The "Middle East" is one big country, and invading Iraq somehow "engages" all of them. Righto.

Iran. Syria.

How ARE things there in Kalifornia?

[Predicto]

Iran. Syria.

How ARE things there in Kalifornia?

Nice.

I drove through Salisbury last week on my way to Ocean City. You guys have 'lecktricity yet?

[Corcaigh]

Syria.

Syria?

:yikes:

But those guys are our allies it the GWOT? Otherwise why would we be sending detainees there to be tortured?

[Predicto]

The advantage of being a monday morning quarterback.

.

Sorry, a lot of us were Sunday Afternoon quarterbacks. That is, when Bush was rushing us into war against Iraq for no apparent immediate reason, we were already asking "Why Iraq? And even more, why now, why right this minute? Won't that make things worse?"

Of course, we were just saying that because we hate Bush, freedom and the American Flag. Even though we cheered the Afganistan invasion just a year earlier.

[portisizzle]

Nice.

I drove through Salisbury last week on my way to Ocean City. You guys have 'lecktricity yet?

Yup. But we still have not figgured out the poop thing.

[portisizzle]

Sorry, a lot of us were Sunday Afternoon quarterbacks. That is, when Bush was rushing us into war against Iraq for no apparent immediate reason, we were already asking "Why Iraq? And even more, why now, why right this minute? Won't that make things worse?"

Of course, we were just saying that because we hate Bush, freedom and the American Flag. Even though we cheered the Afganistan invasion just a year earlier.

And then we all asked the Congress for approval...

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.