Bad News for the we lost dems.

[busara]

Once again you turd, it is PUBLIC knowledge. I suppose if I told you Custer and a third of the 7th Cavalry were killed at Little Bighorn in 1876 you would demand proof? If I told you Kerry ran against Bush in 2004, you would want proof? If I told you thousand die every year in car acidents, do I have to link to a source for that?

You are a lazy turd. It was all over the news in 2004 and 2005. Look it up your self. Or are you admitting you are an incompetent boob that can not navigate the internet?

ooooo, calling me names over the internet. what a big man.

stop making meaningless comparisons. what was all over the news was the ties between saddam and al queda which have since been disproven. it also was shown how he gave some rewards to palestinian terrorists who attacked israel. but i dont remember ANYTHING about him actively trying to ally with a a terrorist organization to attack the united states. now show me otherwise. prove that i have a bad memory or simply missed the story. i dont get why that is so hard. i already told you why i wont find it myself. are you admitting you cant or dont read the posts here? show that youre better than the people on here you always complain about for not properly citing sources or making stupid claims. come on RGS, you can do it.

and if it is such common knowledge, why isnt everyone here rushing to your side to defend you? i'm just looking for some verification of information here, as i do with everybody when they post something which needs to be proven.

 

[Ravi]

Busara, what I believe he is referring to is Saddam's dream diary, it turned out that most of Saddam's dreams (after heavily imbibing whiskey) were that one day the rest of the world would leave him alone and he'd have the time and capability to take over the world.

 

[Diuretic]

Once again you turd, it is PUBLIC knowledge. I suppose if I told you Custer and a third of the 7th Cavalry were killed at Little Bighorn in 1876 you would demand proof? If I told you Kerry ran against Bush in 2004, you would want proof? If I told you thousand die every year in car acidents, do I have to link to a source for that?

You are a lazy turd. It was all over the news in 2004 and 2005. Look it up your self. Or are you admitting you are an incompetent boob that can not navigate the internet?

But was Custer a dickhead? That would require proof I think.

 

[editec]

FYI: Source Rueters 11 Jul 2008 1609 GMT

Following are the latest figures for soldiers and civilians killed since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003:

U.S.-LED COALITION FORCES:

United States 4,118

Britain 176

Other nations 138

IRAQIS:

Military Between 4,900 and 6,375#

Civilians Between 85,865 and 93,675*

# = Think-tank estimates for military under Saddam Hussein killed during the 2003 war. No reliable official figures have been issued since new security forces were set up in late 2003.

* = From Iraq Body Count (IBC), run by academics and peace activists, based on reports from at least two media sources. The IBC says on its website the figure underestimates the true number of casualties.

The U.S.-led military coalition toll includes casualties from Iraq and the surrounding area where troops are stationed. (Writing by David Cutler, London Editorial Reference Unit)

One man's death is a tragedy. One million people's deaths are a statistic.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Cool.. we won .. I guess the troops can head home in say.... 16mnths... Unfortunately that plays right into Obamas hands... I can understand why you cats are pissed...

Personally, I figured it would take ten years from when we breached the berm. If they say we can start the draw down after the 45 day pause and we end up out of there 16 months (which sounds VERY logistically aggressive to me), we would be running up on 8 years. My guess is that the minimum would be 18 months anyway probably more like 24 months (remember this is a Government operation).

So, we'll end up out of there between about 8 and 9 years after we went in. Sounds like we did a damned fine job all you instant gratification fuckers notwithstanding.

 

[sealybobo]

FYI: Source Rueters 11 Jul 2008 1609 GMT



One man's death is a tragedy. One million people's deaths are a statistic.

Displaced Iraqi's forced out of their own country 2 million.

And the number of dead Iraqi's, on the very high side, could be 1 million.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Alright, well she can say what she likes. I usually try saying that millions of lives have been destroyed. Even if it had been half a million, it is no trivial matter, especially considering the 5 MILLION REFUGEES. I just don't think it's a matter that ought to be taken so lightly, whether it'd be millions or hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands. You just have to look at the scope of it. Let's say it was "just" 500,000. That's 1 out of every 60 iraqis. With 1,000,000, that's 1 out of 30. One out of every thirty people you've ever met is dead. That could include your family, people you live with, people in your neighborhood, people you went to school with, people you worked with. If they're 'lucky', they've forced themselves into exile. Exile is no trivial matter either. Internally displaced? Well, if that is trivial, then I guess Katrina was of no importance either. The effect of the refugees is probably even more devastating than that of the dead, in either case, both for Iraq and for the whole region.

As for the VAST majority, again, I don't know what percentage have been directly responsible for which, so I wouldn't make a claim. One of the sources I posted put the causes of death at 6% for both car bombs and aerial bombardments, but by far the major bulk was gunshot wounds, which could be from either side.

I'm sorry. Is there a point to all this hand-wringing? It's a fucking war. People die. There it is.

In the end, the only question is did we achieve our national policy objective by prosecuting the war and enforcing the peace? If the answer is yes (and we won't really know until we have withdrawn and the government holds), then we've accomplished what we set out to do.

Will that make them love us or hate us? Who fucking cares? We've never been successful at "winning hearts and minds" it is a complete waste of time and a mind-fuck to even attempt it. We have successfully gone into countries completely blown them utterly apart, occupied their countries for 60 years and made them love us. So, you pick, the failed "hearts and minds" policy or the successful "blow the bastards to hell" policy.

That slightly overstates it, but really the sniveling was out of control!

 

[Jeepers]

I'm sorry. Is there a point to all this hand-wringing? It's a fucking war. People die. There it is.

In the end, the only question is did we achieve our national policy objective by prosecuting the war and enforcing the peace? If the answer is yes (and we won't really know until we have withdrawn and the government holds), then we've accomplished what we set out to do.

Will that make them love us or hate us? Who fucking cares? We've never been successful at "winning hearts and minds" it is a complete waste of time and a mind-fuck to even attempt it. We have successfully gone into countries completely blown them utterly apart, occupied their countries for 60 years and made them love us. So, you pick, the failed "hearts and minds" policy or the successful "blow the bastards to hell" policy.

That slightly overstates it, but really the sniveling was out of control!

ahh.. the compassionate conservative argument...

Go read the inscription on the fucking statue of liberty you fucking idiot... When this country gets attacked because we are seen as weak and over extended I hope to hell its your ass that takes a laser guided missle... no better yet... I hope to hell you survive to be a heart and mind that gets trampled by the uncaring occupying army...

 

[Charles_Main]

Ah liberal hate at it's finest.

 

[Jeepers]

Ah liberal hate at it's finest.

Please explain... while youre at it feel free to explain why you agree with Techs anti responsibility rant...

 

[Ravi]

I

In the end, the only question is did we achieve our national policy objective by prosecuting the war and enforcing the peace?

It'd be easier to answer that question if anyone knew what the national policy objective was.

 

[Charles_Main]

Please explain... while youre at it feel free to explain why you agree with Techs anti responsibility rant...

Why would I explain agreeing with something I never said I agree with? I was simply referring to Jeepers post. Which was filled with his normal seething hate for all things Repubican, or anyone who holds opinions contrary to his own. For gods sake he used the F word twice in the first sentence then went on to say he hoped bad things would happen to the poster, and I call that Hate

 

[Jeepers]

What are you fucking dense.. look at the context.. christ I feel like I am talking to idiots here... he said he gives two shits about us winning the hearts and minds... I am presenting an argument that he mind find a little closer to home...

 

[Charles_Main]

What are you fucking dense.. look at the context.. christ I feel like I am talking to idiots here... he said he gives two shits about us winning the hearts and minds... I am presenting an argument that he mind find a little closer to home...

There you go again, proving my point. I do not care who is presenting what argument. Your words speak for themselves. Try debating with out using the F word, and calling people idiots, and I wont say you are hateful.

 

[Jeepers]

There you go again, proving my point. I do not care who is presenting what argument. Your words speak for themselves. Try debating with out using the F word, and calling people idiots, and I wont say you are hateful.

Fuck that... I've been dealing with dolts for way too long... if you present a worthy statement then my language will change, if you attack my style when I am speaking to someone that mocks everything thing that makes this country great then it is you sir that has the problem.. not me... I'll ask you again do you condone this statement?

I'm sorry. Is there a point to all this hand-wringing? It's a fucking war. People die. There it is.
In the end, the only question is did we achieve our national policy objective by prosecuting the war and enforcing the peace? If the answer is yes (and we won't really know until we have withdrawn and the government holds), then we've accomplished what we set out to do.
Will that make them love us or hate us? Who fucking cares? We've never been successful at "winning hearts and minds" it is a complete waste of time and a mind-fuck to even attempt it. We have successfully gone into countries completely blown them utterly apart, occupied their countries for 60 years and made them love us. So, you pick, the failed "hearts and minds" policy or the successful "blow the bastards to hell" policy.
That slightly overstates it, but really the sniveling was out of control!

 

[sealybobo]

It'd be easier to answer that question if anyone knew what the national policy objective was.

Want to hear something horrible?

Rachel Maddow on Air Americ and Race For The White House msnbc tells what is really going on in Iraq. She's one reason I know these people on these boards don't know what they are talking about.

Anyways, there are these 2 oil men that have donated millions to bush's presidential library. They have both struck oil deals with the kurds. That means essentially the al malaki government will receive nothing from those oil dollars. Do I need to explain how damaging that is to the iraqi central government?

so iraq will ultimately be divided in three. and who's going to get screwed ultimately? the sunnis. So they will be the future terrorst problem in iraq. This civil war is not over.

But you don't hear these details in the media.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Personally, I figured it would take ten years from when we breached the berm. If they say we can start the draw down after the 45 day pause and we end up out of there 16 months (which sounds VERY logistically aggressive to me), we would be running up on 8 years. My guess is that the minimum would be 18 months anyway probably more like 24 months (remember this is a Government operation).

So, we'll end up out of there between about 8 and 9 years after we went in. Sounds like we did a damned fine job all you instant gratification fuckers notwithstanding.

Actually, in the last 200 years the average length of time it takes to quell an insurgency is in the neighborhood of 15 years. And that is with a much higher percentage of troops/population than we have had in Iraq.

It took us nine years and over 1,000,000 troops to finish the job in Japan.

We will end up with about 20,000 permanent troops in Iraq, similar to S. Korea. Most Americans forget we still have over 5000 troops and support personnel still in the Balkans. About 35,000 in Korea and another 30,000 in Okinawa. And those have been there for upwards 60 years now.

 

[sealybobo]

It'd be easier to answer that question if anyone knew what the national policy objective was.

Want to hear something horrible?

Rachel Maddow on Air Americ and Race For The White House msnbc tells what is really going on in Iraq. She's one reason I know these people on these boards don't know what they are talking about.

Anyways, there are these 2 oil men that have donated millions to bush's presidential library. They have both struck oil deals with the kurds. That means essentially the al malaki government will receive nothing from those oil dollars. Do I need to explain how damaging that is to the iraqi central government?

so iraq will ultimately be divided in three. and who's going to get screwed ultimately? the sunnis. So they will be the future terrorst problem in iraq. This civil war is not over.

But you don't hear these details in the media.

 

[Chris]

Actually, in the last 200 years the average length of time it takes to quell an insurgency is in the neighborhood of 15 years. And that is with a much higher percentage of troops/population than we have had in Iraq.

It took us nine years and over 1,000,000 troops to finish the job in Japan.

We will end up with about 20,000 permanent troops in Iraq, similar to S. Korea. Most Americans forget we still have over 5000 troops and support personnel still in the Balkans. About 35,000 in Korea and another 30,000 in Okinawa. And those have been there for upwards 60 years now.

Nice bit of perspective. The problem is the Sunnis and the Shia hate each other. Iraq is more like Northern Ireland. How long have the British been there? A hundred years?

 

[Zoomie1980]

Nice bit of perspective. The problem is the Sunnis and the Shia hate each other. Iraq is more like Northern Ireland. How long have the British been there? A hundred years?

Iraq may split into three countries, eventually, but that is largely irrelevant. The main strategic goal in Iraq was to gain leverage on two sides of Iran, one in Afghanistan in the east and the other in west, by establishing a permanent military land base presence in easy striking range of not only Iran, but Central Asia as well. Mostly to counterbalance Russian, Chinese and Indian influence in the largest remaining untapped oil and gas reserves left in the World, the Caspian-Aral Sea region of south central Asia.

And THAT is the unspoken, uncovered REAL strategic reason for invading Iraq. So if we end up with that permanent presence then we have fully achieved our objectives in the region.