I do not ignore that fact that Kerry was for taking Saddam out...even though he changed his mind about it three or four times first...One, we didn't go alone...we DO have allies...not a ton, but stop leaving them out like all you liberals do. Secondly, no matter what President, Bill Clinton or George Bush...they both would have gone in...and the same people would not gone to war because they still didn't believe in it...
Bill Clinton really has nothing at all to do with the election. Lets talk about Mr. Bush. A good number of people are against the War in Iraq. Correct? I think it would be safe to say that Almost everyone is against all the casualties in the 'War' in Iraq? Right? I was tooling around and came across a website that has totals of the casualties and wounded. Just to bring this to life. To make it real for those of you that just talk or try to marginalize the numbers. Please keep in mind these are real people Not just numbers. Bush is responsible for this...
American Military Casualties in Iraq
American Deaths
First number is Total Deaths and second number is in Combat.
Since war began (3/19/03): 1103 849
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 966 738
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 641 545
Since Handover (6/29/04): 242 217
American Wounded
Total Wounded 7925
This is just American from what I can tell. Not including other coalition forces. And certainly not including the Iraqi Civilian count. Which is listed as 13,316 Min to 15397 Max.
That is a lot of dead people. Mothers, Fathers, Children lost to the people they love. For what? To capture Saddam? Was it worth it? I mean really, seriously, was it worth it? When going to the polls to vote on Nov 2 take a second before you fill in that blank or punch that card. Think about all the people that have died so Bush could have his war.
Please do not post a reply to this if you are going to try to rationalize that this was needed. Nothing in Iraq(other then oil and greed) caused this to happen. Lay it all on Bush's door step where it belongs.
Those interested in the Site it is...
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
They said they compiled their soldier counts from this website...
http://www.defenselink.mil/
If the Above link to the US Department of Defense isn't a good enough source I am not sure what else would be.
I know why I brought up Bill Clinton? Because he TOO saw the threat in Saddam...And seeing as though he's at the opposite sides of the political spectrum from Bush...it just comes to show that no matter the party, we knew the threat that we were dealing with and we knew he had to be taken out of power. I'm not trying to say that because Bill Clinton said Saddam should be ousted that that justifies Bush's actions...You may not believe it does...but I see a connection and they both saw intelliegence that pointed at Saddam and said "this guy is dangerous and he HAD weapons and WILL and COULD use them...he needs to be taken out..." Hmm, "antiwar.com" I think that speaks for itself.
you keep burting out the same tired old rhetoric and refuse to address the real opinions of others. i have not heard a single person here say "saddam is a nice guy" but yet you argue this imaginary point. nobody has said "saddam was a good leader and we should have never ousted him" yet you argue this, another imaginary point.
people have told you what the deal is: bush should not have gone into the war unilaterally and unprepared for the fallout. nobody to my knowledge has said that saddam should have stayed in power or that he was an OK guy. argue the REAL issue.
what you are doing is called 'straw man tactics' meaning that you lable those who disagree with you as liking hussein. you use your imaginary points to make an effigy out of those who oppose your views, so you can say crap like "you make me sick".
the ideas of a few far out leftists do not reflect the views of everyone who disagree's with bush's policy. if that were the case, i would call you a racist redneck hatemonger, since this type of person falls on the right.
not a fair way of thinking is it?
its not a productive method of debating and it only proves that you are narrowminded.
BTW, all our allies backed out accept for britain. so much for the coalition of the willing. we needed u.n. approval, not to help us fight the war, we have the greatest military in the world. we needed their support to handle the fallout, and now its all up to us...and the british.
it didnt have to be this way
Of course Hussein was a bad guy (who we once supported), and he had chemical weapons (which we knew for over 20 years), and he threatened his neighbors (although when he fought Iran we were all for it). Since 1991 the nation of Iraq had been successfully contained. Suddenly they had nukes (maybe) and they were going to give them to terrorists even though that was contrary to Saddam's megalomania. Bush 2 talked about doing somethig to Iraq when he got into office and the 9-11 attacks gave him the excuse he wanted.
Nothing had changed, none of our people should be getting killed, and this whole thing has actually made us more of a target.....
Originally posted by Cipher
Of course Hussein was a bad guy (who we once supported), and he had chemical weapons (which we knew for over 20 years), and he threatened his neighbors (although when he fought Iran we were all for it). Since 1991 the nation of Iraq had been successfully contained. Suddenly they had nukes (maybe) and they were going to give them to terrorists even though that was contrary to Saddam's megalomania. Bush 2 talked about doing somethig to Iraq when he got into office and the 9-11 attacks gave him the excuse he wanted.Nothing had changed, none of our people should be getting killed, and this whole thing has actually made us more of a target.....
The enemy of our enemy is our friend, at least for a short time... ever hear of the Iran hostage situation? WE WOULD DO anything to get them back.
Contrary to goals huh? why did Saddam contribute to the dead families of terrorist bombers attacking Isreali civilians?
Saddam had disobeyed 16 UN resolutions.... UN mandated military action after each one but buckled and gave in. Saddam kicked out the inspectors after 9-11 and Bush would not stand for it, so action. plain and simple.
More of a target hu? please explain how the terrorists can posibly hate us more? considering that thier original goal was basically world domination of Islam and the destruction of the west? 😐 We are killing terrorists in combat everyday, who will not be attacking civilians with bombs, rather soldiers, those who brunt our battles. You cannot sit there and say those kind of things when you have no idea what is like, and cannot speak for those who fight, so hold your tongue and hatred to your self.
"Saddam kicked out the inspectors after 9-11 and Bush would not stand for it"
you're incorrect there.
hussein did not kick out the inspectors after 9-11.
he has done so, but not after 9-11, and not when dubya was president.
the UN security council resolution 1441 was passed to
force iraq to undergo inspection. saddam allowed them in
and they found nothing. bush declaired that the inspectors were being manipulated and decieved and decided to declare the council 'obsolete'
and then we saw colon powel declare that they were 100% certain that there was a nuclear program and biological weapons....etc.
Saddam Hussein was NOT allowing inspectors to inspect, that's exactly why we constantly told him that if he did not respond to the inspections that we would be forced to invade Iraq...He did not...and while the UN did nothing, Saddam probably disposed of the weapons...do you know how much time he had to? MANY people on these forums have said that Saddam did nothing against us and that we shouldn't have removed him PVS...Have you been listening to the discussions going on. We are not unprepared for the war...If we need more troops or more ammunition, weapons, etc...Bush said the commanders on the ground would tell him so and he would give it to him...that's why we are spending so much on the war...I think we are prepared enough...We caught Saddam....and don't try to say that because we caught Saddam, that I'm gonna say that there is no threat still...of course there is still a threat...I don't think terrorism will ever be fully destroyed...but it can be weakened so that it is harder for them to strike...And I never said that all people against the war like Saddam...however, there are a very many that think he is not that bad of a guy and that Bush is worse...or at least that think that he should never have been removed...don't try and say that you were just against how Bush went to war...that is bullshit...most of you guys thought he never was dangerous and never had weapons...when he DID have weapons...the only question was whether he still had them or disposed of them...if he had co-operated, then we wouldn't have had to go to war with him...But he did not listen...and we invaded...People think that Bush planned to go to war with Iraq right as soon as he got into office...was he planning that Saddam would not co-operate so that we could invade...I don't think so...that's why we tried to get the UN inspectors in for almost a year...and still he did not comply...We told him that we would invade if we he didn't comply...If he had no weapons, then what the hell was he worried about us going in for inspections? If he hadn't had weapons and wasn't a threat, then he would have complied, we wouldn't have found anything, and we wouldn't have invaded...
if you bothered to read my post, i was pointing out an innacuracy in raven's post. it wasnt even a point for debate, i was just correcting her. the u.n. asked for more time and bush said no. its a fact.
hunchy: "People think that Bush planned to go to war with Iraq right as soon as he got into office"
ok, let me quote from his inaugural speech:
"We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors."
"The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/inaugural-address.html
sounds like he was hinting at a war there...now mind you, this is pre sept11
I was not responding to your comments to Raven, I was responding to the post before that...No PVS, just because YOU haven't said Saddam wasn't that bad, and should have been removed doesn't mean everyone else hasn't...because they have...I've heard it for myself...not just on these forums, but all around the town where I live...which is mostly liberal. How those quotes sound like he wants to go to war is beyond me...He was stating if you read the whole thing that he basically make America strong against weapons that would harm us, or against other threats of terror...It's not like just Saddam is the only person with weapons...he's talking about defense and defending ourselves...he was probably informed of dangers from different countries by Bill Clinton...But OH YEAH, BUSH PLOTTED 9/11 right? So he was waiting for the attack to happen so that we could invade Iraq...and don't try to tell me that people do not support that opinion...But you don't believe in all that now do you? Bush just didn't handle sending our troops into Iraq...we weren't prepared, that's why we caught Saddam...
"We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge. We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors. The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth."
Originally posted by PVS
if you bothered to read my post, i was pointing out an innacuracy in raven's post. it wasnt even a point for debate, i was just correcting her. the u.n. asked for more time and bush said no. its a fact.hunchy: "People think that Bush planned to go to war with Iraq right as soon as he got into office"
ok, let me quote from his inaugural speech:
"We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors."
"The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/inaugural-address.html
sounds like he was hinting at a war there...now mind you, this is pre sept11
UN inspectors were kicked out of every region which they requested to search, they were not allowed to enter palaces, not allowed to enter facilities without prior notification months in advance. When they tried to do a surprise inspections, they were held at the gates while convoys of semis where leaving the premises. The inspectors were detained multiple times, and forced physically to leave the country. And if i remember correctly, the final months before the conflict the inspectors were restricted access to the country and advised by the UN to leave the country. US inspectors were not allowed in the groups at all. Un had 12 years of time, their reluctance to war showed only weakness to walk all over us. Of course if you realize anything, foreign policy is an important issue and if YOU remember just at the end of the Clinton administration the guy had ordered cruise missle strikes, and iraq was becomming an issue again. You make the quotes and the issue sound like only Bush cared about war with iraq 🙄 it was in fact a viable issue at the time.
"we weren't prepared, that's why we caught Saddam..."
yeah, capturing saddam solved everything. check the statistics of troops wounded and killed before and after saddam was captured.
as usual, you twist the point to fit your liking.
the issue was not capturing saddam, but dealing with an occupied iraq. THATS what bush disregarded. now quick, ignore that point again
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
UN inspectors were kicked out of every region which they requested to search, they were not allowed to enter palaces, not allowed to enter facilities without prior notification months in advance. When they tried to do a surprise inspections, they were held at the gates while convoys of semis where leaving the premises. The inspectors were detained multiple times, and forced physically to leave the country. And if i remember correctly, the final months before the conflict the inspectors were restricted access to the country and advised by the UN to leave the country. US inspectors were not allowed in the groups at all. Un had 12 years of time, their reluctance to war showed only weakness to walk all over us. Of course if you realize anything, foreign policy is an important issue and if YOU remember just at the end of the Clinton administration the guy had ordered cruise missle strikes, and iraq was becomming an issue again. You make the quotes and the issue sound like only Bush cared about war with iraq 🙄 it was in fact a viable issue at the time.
no need to get defensive, usually when someone points out an inacuracy with something i say, i thank them. you said saddam kicked the u.n. inspectors out of iraq, i corrected that.
and just so you know, i remember before the clinton administration when saddam was launching scud missiles into isreal trying to insight a holy war. i KNOW the guy was a freaking wacko and needed to be taken out. it was done in the wrong way and the situation in an occupied iraq is seemingly hopeless. we needed and still need the support of other nations but we have none, because bush chose to mislead and damage our credibility. he showed satellite photos, said WE KNOW WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT THE WEAPONS ARE RIGHT THERE...and they were not there.
did the weapons exist? of coarse they did. but rather than admit they dont know where, they unconditionally backed crap intelligence and spiced it up with talks of enriched uranium, which never happened. it was a nobil act, but based on lies.
PVS, I knew you'd try to say that because we caught Saddam that I would say that everything would be fine...that's why I brought up this point in my last reply that stated:
"and don't try to say that because we caught Saddam, that I'm gonna say that there is no threat still...of course there is still a threat...I don't think terrorism will ever be fully destroyed...but it can be weakened so that it is harder for them to strike"
But you seemed to ignore that didn't you? Of course it was about capturing Saddam! Are you really that confused about the war? We asked him to leave Iraq or we were gonna invade and take him out...and he went into hiding and the main focus was to capture and find him...where have you been PVS, hiding in a hole in the ground? Dealing with an occupied Iraq...YES, occupied by a dictator...SADDAM HUSSEIN...
And as for Backfire's comments, saying that not everyone that dislikes Bush is for Michael Moore...I only said that about that one person because they created a thread saying that Bush had stolen the election, which is a major point in Fahrenheit 9/11...and just a conspiracy theory at that which many people on these forums really seem to love.
"...we weren't prepared, that's why we caught Saddam..."
you declared that we were well perpared becuase we caught saddam.
you cant claim to prove your point and then follow it by saying "if you want to argue that point, i never said it" wtf kind of strategy is that?
i am superman!!!
and dont just say i'm claiming to be superman!!!
Your mixing things up totally...I said that we were prepared...and we caught Saddam...The other point I made was that BECAUSE Saddam was caught, does not mean that there will be peace...THAT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT. You are really getting things confused....Please explain how being prepared and catching Saddam is the same as peace being established and terrorism stopping completely after he is caught...
Originally posted by PVS
no need to get defensive, usually when someone points out an inacuracy with something i say, i thank them. you said saddam kicked the u.n. inspectors out of iraq, i corrected that.and just so you know, i remember before the clinton administration when saddam was launching scud missiles into isreal trying to insight a holy war. i KNOW the guy was a freaking wacko and needed to be taken out. it was done in the wrong way and the situation in an occupied iraq is seemingly hopeless. we needed and still need the support of other nations but we have none, because bush chose to mislead and damage our credibility. he showed satellite photos, said WE KNOW WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT THE WEAPONS ARE RIGHT THERE...and they were not there.
did the weapons exist? of coarse they did. but rather than admit they dont know where, they unconditionally backed crap intelligence and spiced it up with talks of enriched uranium, which never happened. it was a nobil act, but based on lies.
The countries who chose not to help us chose to do so far before and, no amount of time would have changed thier minds. You throw this credibility crap around like its new, all the countries that hate us now are the same who hated us then. The only thing that has changed is that our enemies are now watching thier backs because we are willing to take them down weree ever they stand.
Are you calling our spies, and ever other countries spies collectively, satilite intel officers of every country and the UN itself liars? Our operatives risk thier very lives to get that intel. Did it ever pass threw your mind that maybe, just maybe all of it was true and during the 3 months of waiting or earlier they smuggled the equipment out? i doubt not that the did not have uranium, but can you deny the fact that Saddam had been searching for a way to get some?
your question makes no sense.
"explain how being prepared and catching saddam..."
to explain what you ask, i would have to yield in my arguement...nice try.
my point is that capturing saddam was the result of an invasion.
we were prepared for an invasion, i never argued that...ever.
i argue that we were never prepared for the REAL task, which is keeping the peace in iraq, training iraqis to police their own country, and get the hell out of there, leaving behind a new flourishing democracy...thats not happening. did you know that not all cities in iraq will be holding elections?
iraq is in the state of chaos, and terrorists are attracted to chaos. its not a religion, but a result of a fundamentilist wackos seeking out chaos to exploit. thus the taliban in afganistan.