CJR: Obama seriously misleading voters about McCain's "100 years"

How many US soldiers were killed during the occupation of Japan?

None.

I can't find a definitive number for American casualties for the post-WWII occupation of Korea, but nothing I've found suggested there were any.

Best estimate for post-Korean War US casualties in South Korea is less than 100 killed and it seems most if not all came from DMZ clashes with North Korea.

In neither case were the Japanese or South Koreans lobbing mortars into the Green Zone equivalents.

 

Facts! Faaaacts! We want facts!

Aren't the Obama zombies scary! We have to keep data-driven people away from our government.

 

No, you have it totally wrong. Afghanistan did not have oil, yet it had Al Qaeda and that resulted in 9/11. So Al Qaeda is most certainly NOT just an excuse to keep troops in Iraq. The fact is the catastrophic disaster of an invasion created Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq to start with. Bush is actually responsible for creating new base of operations for a sworn enemy of this country.

Comparing Iraq to Japan and Korea is a stretch. The rationale for being in those two countries and the demographics involved are stark contracts with Iraq. There is no equivalent Shia/Sunni/Kurd fissure, which makes Iraq nearly impossible to deal with. Iraq is also surrounded by several countries, each with it's own agenda and it has a border that cannot be sealed.

 

WHAT? I was talking about Iraq. Now you change the topic to Afghanistan.

Afghanistan has no oil. That's why we are screwing our NATO allies now such that we have the people to take over Iraq.

 

Ugh.

First, the construction of the first sentence. Nice attempt at emulating Uncle Remus.

Second, what's up with the last sentence? It lacks agreement and really, you calling someone out on needing a messiah is hysterical given the pains you've gone to over the last 8 years of justifying anything your boy W has undertaken. Your posts can be described as nothing less than hagiographic.

 

This is a pretty strong statement. Can you back it up with some facts? The number probably wasn't high. I highly doubt the number is zero. But I guess you will spin the meaning of "killed" to your favor.

 

Not spin. Just the most rational explanation for an irrational collection of thoughts.

I just might go to work. My wife is involved already.

 

What a red herring. Al qaeda was not in any area of Iraq under Saddam's control.

If you want to argue about a meaningless technicality go ahead. Al-Qaeda was not in an area of Iraq under control of our enemy prior to the invasion.

 

Rand Corporation report: America's Role in Nation-Building
From Germany to Iraq... unfortunately, it's in .pdf.

Scroll down to the chart at the top of page 5.

http://rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1753/MR1753.ch9.pdf

I love it how you guys resort to throwing the word "spin" around when you can't argue the facts. How would one spin "killed?" I guess the way this administration has spun "torture" would be a good place to start.

 

Will you people never let this lie die?

Go do a search. This has been rebuked in countless threads already.

 

The post-conflict death is 43 for Afghanistan in this report. How can I believe that?

 

Interesting. Every Lyric site I look at has it as:

We're supposed to be some kind of different

Not quite what you wrote:

s'posed be some kinda different

Still (get it?) I'll give it to you.

 

Maybe you should read the report. It was written in 2003 and established the baseline of December, 2001... when the Taliban government ceased to exist.

 

OK Hillary. It has been rebuked and disproved.

 

Thanks for pointing it out.

After I read the fine print, the count is for "Post-conflict Combat related deaths". I was thinking about "Post-conflict deaths"