About Military death rates under George W. Bush. Page 2
|May 4th, 2006||#11|
| || |
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Sir Winston Churchill
|May 8th, 2006||#14|
| || |
|May 9th, 2006||#16|
| || |
I really hate this topic info
I'm sorry BUT I really hate this topic.
I don't give a sh*t what kind of figures you stack up next to a presidents name ... it doesn't mean a g*ddamn thing.
The questions you MUST ask yourself are, were these deaths really NECESSARY and were they in a GOOD cause?
One death next to GW's name, is one death too many ... the invasion of Iraq wasn't really necessary. Iraq did NOT attack us (nor) were they aligned with the forces that attacked us on 9/11.
So ... that makes the butcher's bill for Bush Jr, a veritable blood bath that can be laid directly at his feet for NO other reason than he had a personal reason for the invasion. "Vendetta" for a President of the United States is NOT a valid reason to commit troops to a war with another country.
Discussion of "kill" statistics really doesn't resolve any discussion UNLESS you also include the reasons for the conflict. One death for invalid reasons is a crime ... 500,000 deaths to protect the Union, is blood well shed.
The Tree of Freedom must be watered by the blood of our young ... we often use this adage to explain how young men through the history of this country have ALWAYS been willing to die defending our way of life. Today is NO difference.
My point is ... I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THEY REALLY DIED FOR THE RIGHT REASONS ... NOT FOR THE PERSONAL REVENGE OF A PRESSIDENT.
Last edited by Chief Bones; May 9th, 2006 at 02:54..
|May 9th, 2006||#17|
| || |
Ok Chief, my right reason for joining the Army AFTER the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Saddam was an evil, sadistic son-of-a-bitch who needed to be removed from office and rather than be putting on trial this balls should have been cut off with a rusty butterknife and they should be rammed down his throat so he chokes on them. I joined the Army and volunteered to go to Iraq because I believe in things such as freedom, justice, equality, democracy, all of which were being trampled by Saddam. Now I agree that Iraq is not the only country that we should go after, but if I make a list I will be labeled as a "war hawk" and people (probably yourself included.) will try and denounce me for seeking to bring the rights I have joined all my life to these people. Here's a little taste of what my list would include: North Korea and Sudan. However I am a realist, I realize that there are some things that are beyond the capabilities of even the United States and there are some things that just aren't worth it. Democracy in North Korea for instance. Is it worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, milllions of Chinese and tens of millions Koreans? I don't think so.
Please note that 98% of what I say is my opinion and/or my "version" of the facts. Most of what I say is rumor with little to no evidence to back it up, just something I picked up somewhere.
|May 9th, 2006||#18|
| || |
"Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it".
Last edited by Italian Guy; May 9th, 2006 at 09:04..
|May 9th, 2006||#19|
| || |
I agree with Chief entirely, iraq was never neccessary. GW has thrown away quite a few american lives by his mistake. Because iraq certaintly posed no threat to the world or had any part in 9/11 it should not have been included in the "War on Terror". Support the troops by all means but don't support a president who pushed and pushed for a war which needn't have taken place in which lives needn't have been lost.
I'm all for freedom and democracy but not for superpowers to declare war on shoddy grounds willy nilly and ruin innocent peoples lives. If iraq was attacked in the name of freedom then you go after ALL countries who are on the list or be labeled as a hypocrite. You can't pick and choose here.This is not how a superpower should behave.
Support the troops, not the president, its common sense.