In 2003 there were approximately <b>1 Million</b> fetuses who lost their right to life to abortion in America.
You left that wide open. Trying it once and failing, then announcing we are doing it again then waiting months for the Iraqi PM to get the balls to try again, and in the meantime letting any of the non suicidal bad guys slip away. You may have failed to notice but our troops are under foreign command now. Not putting enough troops in Iraq to maintain security and now committing so many resources to this one place that chaos reigns elsewhere in Iraq.
Failing? I thought we just called the dogs off. If we had a failure it was of will and it was politically involved. That's too bad but not surprising. Why are people conjecturing that we will have more dead Americans now that the stronghold has been weakened than if we had taken them when at full force? Sure it would have been better to capture them all, but it is better that they are widely flung now than still holding down Fallujah. Scattering them and gaining intel as they seek to coalesce again is not a bad strategy-- if you can't just blow them out of existence. Who is our fearless leader now? The French? The Germans? The UN?
Your reply indicates statements you wish to make not anything I wrote. I never claimed there would be more dead Americans either way. Quit making up stuff. re:capture them all versus widely flung - hey guerilla warfare at it's finest. Name one country that defeated an anti occupation guerilla insurgency. Capturing territory is meaningless if we let them slip away every time the cavalry shows up. WTF is this out of the blue comment about fearless leader? Your attempt to change direction I guess scores points for the xenophobes but has no bearing on anything posed here. Is this your response to our troops being under the command of the Iraqi leader?
re: "In another story on Al Jazeera, Mr al-Badrani says: "Almost half of the city's mosques have been destroyed after being targeted by US air and tank strikes" Here we admit to it because they attacked from the mosques. Al Jazeera appears no different from Fox in it's selective coverage. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...2nov12,0,3089712.story?coll=la-home-headlines . . . We have a lot of mosques in our AO (Area of Operations), and to the best of my knowledge in only one instance did we not receive fire from a mosque," said Capt. Matt Nodine, judge advocate for the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment. "These mosques have lost the protections of the Geneva Convention. We are not here to destroy mosques. But the terrorists are using them and we will go after them." . . . http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...2nov12,0,1829618.story?coll=la-home-headlines BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraqi insurgents have extended their reach over large swaths of the country, including sections of the capital, making it unlikely that the United States can establish the stability needed for credible elections in January even if its forces succeed in Fallujah, military and political analysts say. There is little doubt that American-led forces will recapture Fallujah within days, the analysts say. But U.S. officials who are planning for the election face another challenge: a law and order vacuum in many Sunni areas where there are no American or Iraqi forces and insurgents can operate with impunity. . . . In the north, Mosul, once trumpeted by the U.S. military as a model of stability, is now mostly controlled by insurgents. Earlier this week, two U.S. soldiers there were killed in mortar attacks. On Wednesday, insurgents killed four Turkish truckers and guerrillas armed with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades clashed with American troops for several hours. They attacked two U.S. convoys, destroying two cars and killing four people, according to a reporter on the scene. . . .
Yes, grind the bastards down. At some point, the young people will see that the Americans are not the beast they have been made out to be Giddyupp. Grind them till they love us. Giddyupp, are you into S&M? Would grinding make you love some foreign troops occupying America. Wierd. Why don't you volunteer to go do some grinding?
In the scale of global killing and destruction and death that is ignored every year, that number is small, even if you assume that every last zygote deserves constitutional rights. Nice feint though.
Those are only dead American children through abortion. If you want to go to a global scale I'll have to do some more reserch. That point to point in mocking pro-life was Mosul not global killing.
Not into S&M. Sorry. What would you do? Wait for the terrorists to come to our shores in regular waves? Would you do something then? What would you do?
What would you do? Wait for the terrorists to come to our shores in regular waves? Any evidence for this belief? We're talking about Iraq, not Al Qaeda. Didn't you see Bush admit finally that Al Qaeda did 9/11, not Iraq? It was in the second debate I believe. Again if you have this actual belief that we are stopping the Fallujans from landing in Galveston, why don't you go defend the USA, I would if I didn't think that this is absurd. Don't you trust the CIA and so forth or are they just a bunch of traitors also? I know you hate Kerry and the Democrats, but does that mean you have to get into buying all the other bs.
Bush has always know that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. It was thought that Saddam was somehow/somewhat involved. That turned out to be less true than might have been considered, but your sham that Bush thought that Saddam did 9/11 is poppycock. I know it is a lie which suits your purposes, but come on.... Those innocent lives in the Towers were not "really" Al Qaeda's enemy were they? They, meaning Al Quaeda, started it, didn't they? They came here once, didn't they? Is there any reason to think that they would not come here again given the time and opportunity? I'd just as soon take that away. They have a jihad against America in case you didn't know.
I thought that YOU maybe thought it was Iraq. Given your landing on the beaches bit I thought this was a reasonable assumption as to your beliefs. It appears that a great many of the Bush voters still incorrectly believe this. I know that Bush and Cheney knew this from the beginning, but they still try to mislead the poor dittoheads.
It's not located in Iraq. The Bush administration listed 60 countries where Al Qaeda was active. Iraq wasn't even on the list after 9/11. It was only when they needed to build support and hype the war in Iraq that they tried to make those ties. The problem that the Bush administration made the original list themselves, and only later tried to claim Saddam and Iraq were involved shows the dishonesty in their intentions. That was a case of misleading people and not bad intel. The intel always said there wasn't an involvement, and the Bush administration knew it previously.
Maybe you understimate that mass of dittoheads who voted for Bush/Cheney in the same way that you underestimate me. I don't know what to make of the argument that a majority of Bush voters still think Iraq was behind 9/11. It is curious for sure. I'd like to see the way the survey question was worded, but in the end I think it is all part of a simple demonization of Saddam that allows just about anything horrible to be his fault one way or another. I agree it is a bit unreasonable, but the Republican circles that I run in certainly don't believe that. From the beginning, I didn't see the Iraq thing as being principally about WMDs (nuclear WMDs in particular) but boy the Bush Critics sure did. That's all they heard and saw. Some were comfortable with Saddam taking 12-15 years to cooperate with the UN sanctions. I guess that was okay pre 9/11, but as we have heard so many times before <b>everything changed after 9/11.</b>
History will decide, but I can't help but wonder if that was done intentionally because the sites were set on Iraq. You know, make them relax because they are not on the radar so to speak. The terrorist training camps were publicly known to be in Kurdish-controlled Iraq not under Saddam's control, but still Iraq is Iraq.
that is because that is what Bush said it was about pre-war (post-war, they have cited many different reasons) the true intend of the war shouldn't be a mystery to anyone http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf the purpose of the invasion was to gain control of one of the world's largest oil reserves and establish a long-term military pressence in the heart of the Middle East
