The Iraq War: Pretty much the opposite of a war on terror

Actually, what they would be digging in Baghdad if we weren't there would be more and more mass graves for Saddam's opponents. But you're perfectly OK with that.

 

I'm betting the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died instead would have been OK with it.

That's a hell of an accomplishment there -- 50,000 innocent Iraqis killed to save 200.

But hey, whatever makes you feel better about all of it.

 

In other words, we're back to the basic point that you want to cut and run because things got difficult. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Because it always eventually gets back to that, doesn't it?

It's a good thing your kind had no traction during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW I, WWII. We were undefeated in wars until the media elites started listening to your kind and spreading your bullshit. But then it always breaks down to the real truth: When dealing with the anti-war left, you have to realize that they're not really anti-war, they're just on the other side.

 

Now this one may top all the others. Yup, Saddam only would have killed 200.

You're even dumber than I thought.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

""We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq."

"If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II."

Stop getting your news from Michael Moore.

 

Good Lord, now Tony is quoting U.S. propaganda government sites to back up his shit.

Yeah, given the current administration's track record, that'll fly.

 

Good work, Mr. Rove, but there's a problem: Bush didn't go into Iraq because of Saddam's treatment of his own citizens. Even you and your illiterate buddy indiansnetwork would, in your quiet moments, have to agree with that. To package this as Bush's philanthropy project would be disingenuous even by your lofty standards.

And yes, there is no denying the heinousness of Saddam's regime. That's another one of your hobbyhorses: attempting to portray anyone who disagrees with the war as someone who somehow supports Saddam.

It's also interesting to note that we've been in Iraq longer than we were in Europe during World War II. So there is a difference between "cutting and running" and cutting our losses.

 

I can get the same information from a UN site or an Amnesty International site or a Human Rights Watch site if you want. But it won't matter, will it? You hate Bush so facts don't matter.

 

Uh, sediments? Though I don't agree with anything you say, you'll make a better case if you can, uh, write.

Here's some help:
sed·i·ment (sd-mnt)
n.
1. Material that settles to the bottom of a liquid
2. Solid fragments of inorganic or organic material that come from the weathering of rock and are carried and deposited by wind, water, or ice.

As for the thread title, most people don't need a report to tell them commom sense. It's nice to have, however. Hopefully, the American people will stand up and make a change in the next couple of elections.

 

There were a multitude of reasons to go into Iraq. Clinton threatened to do it for the last two years of his regime. But just like he "tried" to get bin Laden, he talked big but never pulled the trigger.

And you may have also noticed that "our losses" in Iraq in three years are still fewer than a couple of days in Europe in WWII. Unless you want to compare 291,557 battle deaths to fewer than 3,000. that's what I love about you liberals. Absolutely no sense of proportion.

 

Again, you're showing a remarkable inability to comprehend what you're reading. I never attempted to equate losses in WWII with losses in Iraq. It was simply a time reference. By most independent accounts, our situation in Iraq is worse now than it ever has been.

Since you bring up Clinton and bin Laden, what happened to Bush's "dead or alive" proclamation?

 

Did you actually just blame the media -- on a site for members of the media, no less -- for some military failures? Of all the dumb shit to say.

There's a reason, tony, that 99 percent of this country was behind the war (if you can call it that) in Afghanistan and only 45 percent support this idiotic campaign. It has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with right and wrong.

 

Lovely, a lecture on proportion from a guy who finds more fault in Clinton not doing enough to kill bin Laden after the Cole attack than he does in Bush's failures to do the same after 9-11.

Oh, and just for future reference, I, along with a majority of Americans, will take Clinton's threats over Bush's war every time. The goal in each instance was to keep WMDs out of Saddam's hands. Clinton accomplished that with the threats. Bush accomplished that with 3,000 dead Americans.