• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

67

Disagreeable

Well-known member
At least 67 Americans died in Iraq during the month of April. The worst month this year, so far. Will next month be better? How about June? No report of how many innocent Iraqis died. Link below.

"An American soldier was killed in a roadside bombing north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Friday, as April became the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq this year."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12527564/
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
Dis wrote:
At least 67 Americans died in Iraq during the month of April. The worst month this year, so far. Will next month be better? How about June? No report of how many innocent Iraqis died. Link below.

"An American soldier was killed in a roadside bombing north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Friday, as April became the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq this year."

Over 100 people die on US highways every day. Just think of the lives saved when we run out of gas!!
 

jigs

Well-known member
while the loss of life is tough, I for one am proud of the men and women over there fighting, and am glad it is OVER THERE.

imagine if it were here we were fighting the terrorists, and it was car bombs blowing up innocent Americans.
not to down grade the importance of the sacrifice these fallen soldiers have given, but it is a VOLUNTARY army, and they know what could happen when signing up.

Dis, why don't you try to be possative for a change, instead of pissing in everyones cheerios.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
jigs said:
while the loss of life is tough, I for one am proud of the men and women over there fighting, and am glad it is OVER THERE.

Except there weren't many, if any, terrorists in Iraq when George Bush chose to invade them. And Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. He also had no WMDs.

imagine if it were here we were fighting the terrorists, and it was car bombs blowing up innocent Americans.

Yes, use your imagination because the truth of the matter is that Bush got us into this war because he wanted it, not because it was good for our national security. If you think this country is any safer than it was before 9/11, you need to spend some time researching our ports and our borders. They're full of holes that would allow terrorists with dirty bombs to come into this country.

not to down grade the importance of the sacrifice these fallen soldiers have given, but it is a VOLUNTARY army, and they know what could happen when signing up.

They didn't expect to be used for the President's personal war.

Dis, why don't you try to be possative for a change, instead of pissing in everyones cheerios.

I'm positive that General Casey says we'l likely bring thousands of troops home this fall. Just before the election. My, my, isn't that interesting timing? But how many will die between now and then. And will there be enough troops left to protect each other?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Sierraman said:
Think about the all the common sense that will be saved when we run out of people like Dis.

That sounds like one of Bush's plans "run out of people like Dis." And like his plans, it flys in the face of the truth. Read some polls. More Americans every week say Bush is not doing a good job as President and a majority say we need to bring out troops out of Iraq. And this is the kicker: 47% say he's incompetent! :shock: Incompetent? He obviously should be impeached. This country needs a competent President. :lol:
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member

Over 100 people die on US highways every day. Just think of the lives saved when we run out of gas!![/quote]

But they knew what they were getting into when they got in their cars.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
dis, I can easily agree with you that the number of casualties is too high. WAY too high. Even one is too many. But we can't have war without incurring those risks. I'm thankful for the people willing to take that risk and make those sacrifices. As are you, dis. At least on those things, we can agree.

We have so many differences, dis. It's almost unbelievable that we live in the same country and are involved in the same business. I often wonder what makes you tick. You are so blinded by your hatred of this President and your hatred of conservative principles that you fail to use common sense sometimes.

To say it is a "personal war" is simply stupid. You're not stupid, dis. Do you really believe that this President is so shallow and immature as to waste the lives, risk our military resources and spend the money for something personal? And that Congress is so stupid that they approved it without seeing through that?

I suppose we will always differ. I'd like to think that it's because I'm more rational than you are on the subject. I like to think that I'm open-minded and objective, but it's for damn sure that you are not. Maybe I'm really not either...

It's my belief that President Bush still sees things that many Americans have long forgotten. It's my belief that he still sees things every night while he tries to sleep...every morning when he wakes up. He sees the World Trade Centers falling. He sees those people jumping to their death. He hears their screams. He sees NYC firefighters running toward their death. He sees our Pentagon on fire. He sees heroic Americans rushing a cockpit, facing certain death in an attempt to save others.

dis, you contend that some intelligence showed Iraq was no threat. However, you must admit that some intelligence showed that it was. Even many of your democratic heroes are on record admitting that. After 9/11, this President chose to err on the side of caution. He chose to take it to the people who hate us and pose a threat to us, instead of waiting for them to come here. Waiting, like we did for years.

Now, you can look back with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and say there was never any threat. Or, you can contend that you knew all along that there was never a threat from Saddam. But anytime we have people that hate us, we have the potential for more 9/11's. Of course, I'm sure you'll use your typical response about more of them hating us now than ever before. Maybe that's true. But at least this President doesn't have us sitting around waiting. We know what the potential is....what the risks are of simply waiting. I'm glad we're taking it to them, instead of sitting around waiting.

And I expect there will be military action in more places in the coming years. I'd rather it not be necessary, but I don't see that we'll have any choice. President Bush warned us all that it wouldn't be quick and that it wouldn't be easy. Do you remember that? Many people seem to have forgotten that warning from him right after 9/11. I think it should be played over and over on television and radio to remind everyone.

It's my opinion that Iraq is not a war, in itself. Iraq is simply one battle in the larger War. The longer War. A battle there, instead of a battle here. A battle there, instead of our Pentagon on fire. A battle there, instead of heroic Americans rushing another cockpit. A battle there, instead of more of our cities in ruins.

I think 9/11 has everything to do with us being in Iraq.

But I agree with you that even one is too many... :(
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
X said:
dis, I can easily agree with you that the number of casualties is too high. WAY too high. Even one is too many. But we can't have war without incurring those risks. I'm thankful for the people willing to take that risk and make those sacrifices. As are you, dis. At least on those things, we can agree.

We didn't need to have the Iraqi war. That's the bottom line. If this Administration had shown us we needed a war, they should have prepared the American people for a war. Instead, Bush gave away the Federal surplus, mostly to the richest people in this country! That's..that's... I don't have a word that should be used on this board to describe the disgust I feel for this Administration.

We have so many differences, dis. It's almost unbelievable that we live in the same country and are involved in the same business. I often wonder what makes you tick. You are so blinded by your hatred of this President and your hatred of conservative principles that you fail to use common sense sometimes.

I don't hate George W. Bush. I hate what he's done to this country. It has noting to do with "conservative principles" whatever that is. Do you think George Bush represents "conservative priniples?" That you can support a man who knowingly led us to an unnecessary war, pushed our natural allies away, lied about wiretapping American citizens, lied about expecting the levies in New Orleans to hold, gave aides permission to leak classified information to the media, while publically claiming he hated leakers, shows we do have serious differences.

To say it is a "personal war" is simply stupid. You're not stupid, dis. Do you really believe that this President is so shallow and immature as to waste the lives, risk our military resources and spend the money for something personal?

Yes.

And that Congress is so stupid that they approved it without seeing through that?

Congress saw the intelligence information that Bush allowed them to see. They didn't see much of the information that suggested Saddam was not a threat to the country. Bush used the shock the country felt after 9/11 to go to war with Iraq. If you look back on his speeches, you'll see him use Saddam and Iraq in speeches very close to 9/11. It's only been in the last year that he's stopped doing that. After the American people finally caught on that the two were not related.

I suppose we will always differ. I'd like to think that it's because I'm more rational than you are on the subject. I like to think that I'm open-minded and objective, but it's for damn sure that you are not. Maybe I'm really not either...

:lol: Right: you're more rational. Not likely. I'm ready for you to show me that George W. Bush didn't know Saddam wasn't a threat. I've posted a multitude of articles, government reports, that show otherwise. Let's see your facts, articles, government reports that show me Saddam was a threat to this country. Why did George W. Bush tell the UN inspectors to get out of Iraq so he could invade? A few more days, weeks, they could have told us there were no WMDs, yet he stopped their work. Why did he do that? I say it's because he didn't want what he already knew to be known by the American people and Congress. Then he wouldn't have had his war.

It's my belief that President Bush still sees things that many Americans have long forgotten. It's my belief that he still sees things every night while he tries to sleep...every morning when he wakes up. He sees the World Trade Centers falling. He sees those people jumping to their death. He hears their screams. He sees NYC firefighters running toward their death. He sees our Pentagon on fire. He sees heroic Americans rushing a cockpit, facing certain death in an attempt to save others.

Hype. I think President Bush sees himself caught by his own lies and misrepresentations. He'd like to let this dirty little war go away. But it's the elephant in the room for this country and he can't distance himself from it.

dis, you contend that some intelligence showed Iraq was no threat. However, you must admit that some intelligence showed that it was. Even many of your democratic heroes are on record admitting that. After 9/11, this President chose to err on the side of caution. He chose to take it to the people who hate us and pose a threat to us, instead of waiting for them to come here. Waiting, like we did for years.

Show me some intelligence that showed Iraq was a threat to the US. Virtually every important piece of evidence that Bush used to scare us into this war has been discredited: WMDs, uranium from Niger, Curveball... Saddam was not able to attack the United States. He was not a threat to this country. There were no terrorists' camps in Iraq. You're repeating the same tired old stuff that has long been discredited. I listened to the speeches, I read the newspapers, I watched the news on TV and I never believed Saddam was a threat. And I'm not any smarter than anyone else. I'm apparently just more criticial than most. I also have a close relation with the US Army and don't think our soldiers should be used carelessly. Bush has failed our military.

Now, you can look back with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and say there was never any threat. Or, you can contend that you knew all along that there was never a threat from Saddam. But anytime we have people that hate us, we have the potential for more 9/11's. Of course, I'm sure you'll use your typical response about more of them hating us now than ever before. Maybe that's true. But at least this President doesn't have us sitting around waiting. We know what the potential is....what the risks are of simply waiting. I'm glad we're taking it to them, instead of sitting around waiting.

So how many more nations do you expect this President to attack over the next few years? I can tell you how many I think he will go after without UN sanctions as he did Iraq: 0. Why? Because he's broken our military, the Army at least. He named Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil" and chose to attack the only one without a nuclear program. But Iraq was the only one with a leader Bush had a personal vendetta against. You can ignore that, but I won't.

And I expect there will be military action in more places in the coming years. I'd rather it not be necessary, but I don't see that we'll have any choice. President Bush warned us all that it wouldn't be quick and that it wouldn't be easy. Do you remember that? Many people seem to have forgotten that warning from him right after 9/11. I think it should be played over and over on television and radio to remind everyone.

:) Oh, I'm sure you'd love to see Bush on the rubble pile of 9/11 on TV every day. But it's not going to happen. I'll say it again, because you seem to have so much problem with it: Saddam Hussein, the dictator in Iraq, was not involved in 9/11. He wasn't involved with Bin Laden anywhere. Yes, they had some contacts, but never worked together. So to keep bringing up the 9/11 attack as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq is a false argument.

It's my opinion that Iraq is not a war, in itself. Iraq is simply one battle in the larger War. The longer War. A battle there, instead of a battle here. A battle there, instead of our Pentagon on fire. A battle there, instead of heroic Americans rushing another cockpit. A battle there, instead of more of our cities in ruins.

I think 9/11 has everything to do with us being in Iraq.

Geeze, you started off so promising, but in the end, you give me the same tired arguments that Bush used to give the American people. He's stopped using 9/11 in every speech, he's stopped telling us what "hard work" war is. Terrorism is not a war that can be won with guns and soldiers. Our troops have done what they can do in Iraq. They've toppled Saddam Hussein. It's time to bring our troops home. It's time for Arab countries in that region to step in and help. It's time for the UN to step in and help. Where are Iraq's neighbors? Bush earlier refused UN help. The "War on Terror" that George W. Bush has created can only be won through diplomacy and education. I'll throw in understanding, too. Bush's arrogant belief that the entire world wants to live as we do in this country is simply wrong.

But I agree with you that even one is too many... :(

Good.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You must have plenty of time on your hands, dis. :lol:

Disagreeable said:
We didn't need to have the Iraqi war. That's the bottom line. If this Administration had shown us we needed a war, they should have prepared the American people for a war.
The American people were prepared for war. So was Congress. Remember all of the support? Liberals just have short memories when politics presents opportunities. That's a fact.

And unfortunately, Americans haven't much patience for long-term projects, either. They don't have the resolve to stand the losses. They don't want to be inconvenienced. They don't want any disruptions in their cozy little lives. Sad, but true.

Instead, Bush gave away the Federal surplus, mostly to the richest people in this country! That's..that's... I don't have a word that should be used on this board to describe the disgust I feel for this Administration.
Just like I said...you hate him. For whatever the reason that comes into your mind at the time. Whatever is most convenient for you. The surplus wasn't just manna from Heaven. It didn't just suddenly appear. People were overtaxed. That's why we have surpluses. I resent that. I want my money back and I want the richest people in the country to have their money back, too.

I've told you before that you are more than welcome to send in extra money if it is so important to you. Put your money where your mouth is. But you don't ever do that, do you? :lol:

I don't hate George W. Bush. I hate what he's done to this country. It has noting to do with "conservative principles" whatever that is. Do you think George Bush represents "conservative priniples?"
It's obvious that you are consumed by hatred and bitterness, dis. And it comes as no surprise that you know nothing about conservative principles. As for your question, he's certainly not conservative enough for me.

That you can support a man who knowingly led us to an unnecessary war, pushed our natural allies away, lied about wiretapping American citizens, lied about expecting the levies in New Orleans to hold, gave aides permission to leak classified information to the media, while publically claiming he hated leakers, shows we do have serious differences.
We'll never know if the Iraq war was unnecessary, dis. Because it's a done deal now. Easy for you to make your wild claims. Natural allies? Like who? France? Germany? ROTFLMAO!

The levees? Some 'intelligence' indicated there could be trouble. Some 'intelligence' showed the opposite. Sorta like Iraq. Except when it comes to saving the bums in New Orleans, you expected him to err on the side of caution. Typically hypocritical of you, dis. Typical.

And let's see evidence of those leak claims, dis. Evidence that leads to convictions. Washington is full of leaks. No denying that it happens. If national security or lives were compromised for politics, I expect something to be done about it no matter who is in the White House.

Disagreeable said:
X said:
Do you really believe that this President is so shallow and immature as to waste the lives, risk our military resources and spend the money for something personal?

Yes.
I guess that just shows how you and your kind think, dis. If you think somebody would actually do that, it must be because you would. Sad.

Congress saw the intelligence information that Bush allowed them to see. They didn't see much of the information that suggested Saddam was not a threat to the country.
Threat assessments don't depend on negatives, dis. You don't dwell on mitigation. When a pack of coyotes are stalking a baby calf, you react to the threat, to the possible end result. You don't assume that they MIGHT just be wanting to play with him. You don't assume that they are merely babysitting. You shoot the alpha male first and try to get some more before they get out of range. And when somebody wants to kick your ass, it is best to prepare, best to be proactive. Not look for excuses why they might not kick it.

:lol: Right: you're more rational. Not likely.
Not only likely, but a FACT. I can do a poll if you'd like? :lol:

I'm ready for you to show me that George W. Bush didn't know Saddam wasn't a threat. I've posted a multitude of articles, government reports, that show otherwise. Let's see your facts, articles, government reports that show me Saddam was a threat to this country.
'Didn't know Saddam wasn't'? You want proof of two negatives? dis, every time Cal, PT, LB and others have posted these things, you have either ignored them, or tried to attack the source. You're not interested in objectivity or even listening to an opposing view. Just like you did with my post, you didn't even really think about it. You were too busy thinking and planning your responses as you went along. You never even took the time to try to understand what I was saying. You are only interested in defending your hatred of President Bush.

I disagree with you on almost everything, dis. But I'm not one of the ones that would like to see you banned here. I think dissent is important, but it would be nice if you would tone it down some. Not gunna happen, I know. And at least I DO read your posts. I read them and think about them before responding. I used to not be that way, but I've tried to change. Call it objectivity? Try it sometimes. Try reading someone's thoughts and pausing long enough to consider another point of view before you go on the attack. Try it.

Why did George W. Bush tell the UN inspectors to get out of Iraq so he could invade? A few more days, weeks, they could have told us there were no WMDs, yet he stopped their work. Why did he do that?
Ummm...so they wouldn't get their asses blown off? That horseshit about 'a few more days' had already been going on forever. Remember all the UN resolutions that Saddam just ignored? You like to forget those, don't you? And the inspectors only went where Saddam allowed them to go. How reliable is that for oversight?

I say it's because he didn't want what he already knew to be known by the American people and Congress. Then he wouldn't have had his war.
I say it's because he didn't want to be responsible for them getting blown to hell or taken hostage and used by Saddam.

Hype. I think President Bush sees himself caught by his own lies and misrepresentations. He'd like to let this dirty little war go away. But it's the elephant in the room for this country and he can't distance himself from it.
Not hype. It just shows that you aren't even interested in the opinions of others. Some people still have vivid memories of 9/11. I think George W. Bush is one of them. I think those memories influence his every decision. I'm glad of that.

Show me some intelligence that showed Iraq was a threat to the US. Virtually every important piece of evidence that Bush used to scare us into this war has been discredited: WMDs, uranium from Niger, Curveball... Saddam was not able to attack the United States. He was not a threat to this country. There were no terrorists' camps in Iraq. You're repeating the same tired old stuff that has long been discredited.
As I stated above, many things have been posted here. You just ignore them if it's something that you don't want to hear.

I listened to the speeches, I read the newspapers, I watched the news on TV and I never believed Saddam was a threat. And I'm not any smarter than anyone else. I'm apparently just more criticial than most.
:lol2: Apparently, you're smarter than all the dems in Washington that supported the War. That's a pretty good list, I'm sure you've seen it. Why didn't you use your influence to lean on them and tell them they were wrong?

I also have a close relation with the US Army and don't think our soldiers should be used carelessly. Bush has failed our military.
Ah! A close relation with the Army, huh? Now things are starting to make more sense. Now we're getting somewhere. Tell us more about your 'close relation' so we'll know what makes you tick. I don't have a 'close relation' with the US Army. Tell us more about yours. Maybe we can learn something.

I'll say it again, because you seem to have so much problem with it: Saddam Hussein, the dictator in Iraq, was not involved in 9/11. He wasn't involved with Bin Laden anywhere. Yes, they had some contacts, but never worked together. So to keep bringing up the 9/11 attack as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq is a false argument.
I'll say it again, because YOU seem to have so much problem with it: I think 9/11 has everything to do with us being in Iraq. Because this President was simply not willing to take the chance that a crackpot leader that hates Americans, like Saddam did and still does, would not be involved with another 9/11 type attack on us. The risks were too great. Unlike you and your liberal cohorts, George W. Bush hasn't fogotten 9/11.

I'm done with you now, dis. Don't waste your time doing any more post dissections with my posts. Nobody else wants to wade through all of this junk. Besides...I don't have the time to try to keep up with you. :lol:

By the way, I still agree with you on one thing. Even one is too many... :(
 

Latest posts

Top