U.S. October death toll in Iraq hits 69

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Its easy to get in---but getting out will be not so easy.

ah yes, like a well known local union president/politician was fond of saying: "it's so easy to take a union out on strike...any a$$hole can do that. but i'm the only one that can get a union out of a strike smelling like roses."

would it be that bush and co. had the same charisma and smarts.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
You think pulling out will defeat terrorism? You, sir, are retarded.

And the middle east has hated America for decades. This isnt a new thing.

I call BS. Go listen to former ambassadors to the Mid East who where there from the 40s to 60s or so, and they all loved America because they viewed America as the only super power that wasn't an imperialist.
Even Bin Laden at a point referred that he saw America as an opportunity for them all and admired America...

then of course our heavy handed biased approach in the Mid East was problematic...and then that whole "invade Iraq" debacle that because of this Administration's action . Because of this Administration , the middle east will now "hate" America for the next few decades.

 

[clamum]

So those that disagree with ProfJohn want the US to pull out right away and leave the place to go further down the shitter? That would be about the most asinine thing on the planet to do.

 

[Lemon law]

To clamum,

If that is the best you can make of this thread---I feel really sorry for your thinking ability--it even puts you a few cuts below Prof. John.

Most of this thread is a debate about exactly how big an idiot GWB was to get into the mess in the first place. With some neo-con types trying to make the case it was the right thing to do. But the thread starter was noting that US death rate is going up---Iraqi civilian deaths are way up---in general this thread is just very bullish on the documentation of death.

Its basically only Prof John that only sees abandoning Iraq as a resultant new Al-Quida base----most of us see that risk as a lesser consequence compared to seeing this Iraq war morf into something that totally destabalise the entire mid-east--and possibly the rest of the world.

Our bumbler and chief got us into this mess---and the only possible conclusion now is that GWB is clueless on how to get out without dire consequences---with no responsible poster on this thread advocating cut and run.---in fact this thread does not address withdrawing from Iraq---just present trend lines and the futility of stay the course without some new direction.
But I don't know where this absurd notion comes from---that there are ONLY TWO possible plans--stay the course or cut and run---there are many many basic type plans that might yield better sucess---but they are not being discussed on this thread in any detail

But a lot of us are advocating cutting GWB out of the decision making process---as THE ONLY FIRST STEP THAT MATTERS---once that is done---then we may make some progress in Iraq.---with GWB in charge---any progress is doomed.

Hope that clears up your confusion clamum.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: clamum
So those that disagree with ProfJohn want the US to pull out right away and leave the place to go further down the shitter? That would be about the most asinine thing on the planet to do.

Pulling out isn't the only other option and most people on this forum who oppose Bush don't agree with an immediate pullout either. However, with things getting worse in Iraq, it's always important to..

1. Realize that things ARE getting worse
2. Make changes to the plan so that things don't continue to get worse.

Things appear to be turning for the worse and our president says "staying the course" is the ONLY answer for Iraq. Then, in his typical "Black and White" mindset, he says that the only other option is to "cut and run" and uses that as an attack on the democrats. I'm sure there are a few who want to withdraw from Iraq immediately (just as there are always extremists in any conversation), but others have expressed other plans to force the Iraq's to get their butt in gear. There are more than just two options, but some people refuse to budge no matter the circumstances.

The problem is, we haven't really had a meaningful debate on the topic.

 

[judasmachine]

quote:
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
874 people were murdered in New York City alone last year, why does nobody care?

Call me an SOB, but 3000 deaths in 3 years in Iraq compared to 3000 deaths in New York in one day (9-11) seems like a good trade off. ...
__________________________________________________

Yeah since Iraqis flew those planes into those buildings... Oh why am I bothering...

Is this thing ON? Am I getting through?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
874 people were murdered in New York City alone last year, why does nobody care?

Call me an SOB, but 3000 deaths in 3 years in Iraq compared to 3000 deaths in New York in one day (9-11) seems like a good trade off. ...

Speaking of "bull****". I know you don't like to acknowledge that Iraqis are human beings too, but point of fact, there have been several hundred thousand deaths in Iraq in the last three years.

Yes there have been. Let's withdraw our forces tomorrow so that the Iraqis who want to kill each other can do it freely without us getting in the way. That should lead to less deaths right?

It was your government's stupidity to invade Iraq that has lead to all these deaths.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Returning Banned member with new ISP
874 people were murdered in New York City alone last year, why does nobody care?

Call me an SOB, but 3000 deaths in 3 years in Iraq compared to 3000 deaths in New York in one day (9-11) seems like a good trade off.

.

Your pretty cavalier regarding our soldiers lives aren't you?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Returning Banned member with new ISP
874 people were murdered in New York City alone last year, why does nobody care?

Call me an SOB, but 3000 deaths in 3 years in Iraq compared to 3000 deaths in New York in one day (9-11) seems like a good trade off.

.

Your pretty supportive of soldiers aren't you?

Neo-conned for clarity.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CellarDoor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Call me an SOB, but 3000 deaths in 3 years in Iraq compared to 3000 deaths in New York in one day (9-11) seems like a good trade off.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum (which is saying a lot). I can't even begin to tell you how disgusting this line of thinking is to me, on so many levels.

It's so stupid that it's sig-worthy, so . . .

woohoo I am famous now

For the record I have been saying for weeks in various posts that I think post election we will take a look at our policy in Iraq and most likely change it to a degree.
Which exactly what the whole George Baker thing is about.
We certainly have to take steps to cut back on our loses, but we have to do it in a way that is smart and helps us win over terrorists in the long run.

The bring them all home now mantra that most of the Democratic party supports is not the way to do this.

Yeah, the whole "George Baker thing...."

Stayyyy the course, stayyyyyy the course....

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To clamum,

If that is the best you can make of this thread---I feel really sorry for your thinking ability--it even puts you a few cuts below Prof. John.

Most of this thread is a debate about exactly how big an idiot GWB was to get into the mess in the first place. With some neo-con types trying to make the case it was the right thing to do. But the thread starter was noting that US death rate is going up---Iraqi civilian deaths are way up---in general this thread is just very bullish on the documentation of death.

Its basically only Prof John that only sees abandoning Iraq as a resultant new Al-Quida base----most of us see that risk as a lesser consequence compared to seeing this Iraq war morf into something that totally destabalise the entire mid-east--and possibly the rest of the world.

Our bumbler and chief got us into this mess---and the only possible conclusion now is that GWB is clueless on how to get out without dire consequences---with no responsible poster on this thread advocating cut and run.---in fact this thread does not address withdrawing from Iraq---just present trend lines and the futility of stay the course without some new direction.
But I don't know where this absurd notion comes from---that there are ONLY TWO possible plans--stay the course or cut and run---there are many many basic type plans that might yield better sucess---but they are not being discussed on this thread in any detail

But a lot of us are advocating cutting GWB out of the decision making process---as THE ONLY FIRST STEP THAT MATTERS---once that is done---then we may make some progress in Iraq.---with GWB in charge---any progress is doomed.

Hope that clears up your confusion clamum.

Yeah yeah yeah as usual it degenerates into a Bush-bashing or <whathaveyou>-bashing fest anyway. Whatever. But thanks for the insult, I'm more stupid than ProfJohn hey? Hahahah... oh man.

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: CellarDoor
The total number of deaths isn't what's relevent, or the point of this thread. The point is that the number for this month has gone up by a large percentage to this point.

Actually the point of this thread is to bitch about the war and Bush. It serves no other purpose.
If I am wrong then please tell me what we hope to achieve by posting a thread about the number of dead in this month?

Look, I don't want to see Americans die more than anyone else does. As I have said before my brother is in the navy, my dad spent 22 years in the navy, my roommate in Va and just about everyone I knew when living there is in the navy. I have a friend who has a son who is there right now. I don't want to see any of these people die.

However, I understand that withdrawing now in order to save the lives of a few people will end up costing us more lives in the long run. Whether you like the war or not, or if it was an "illegal war" as some like to say, that doesn't matter anymore. We are there now and have two choices, stay and fight until we win, or leave and lose. I would rather stay and win, or come up with a way to disengage that doesn't turn the country over to the terrorists. Hopefully, a plan like the one from George Baker will be put into place and we can see a way out of this that saves American lives both in Iraq and here at home by keeping the terrorists from taking control of Iraq.

Never, ever should have went in in the first place. We empowered radical shi'ite clerics sitting on top of a quarter of the world's oil reserves. We did so by choice. We have American service people dying for a goal that has always been counterproductive to our long term national interests. It really doesn't get much stupider than that.

It was a strategic blunder of Biblical proportions. The GOP can't govern in America, how could they be expected to set up good governance in Iraq. You make a mistake like Iraq, you don't deserve to be a local dog catcher let alone be in charge of all three branches of the US government.

3000 deaths for less than nothing. We are so much worse off now than we were when Saddam was contained and in charge, when Iraq acted as a natural counterweight to Iranian ambitions. We are powerless to stop Iran's projection of power, not only because we are bogged down in Iraq, but also becasue they see our limitations. We don't frighten them anymore, just like the Israeli's don't frighten Hezzbollah anymore.

Defend BushCo as fiercely as you like - He will go down as the greatest bed sh1tter in the history of America.

 

[BarneyFife]

I remember when the war "ended" and many talking heads were talking about rebuilding Iraq with the oil profits, American companies opening up shop over there, and even heard making Iraq into a tourist attraction. LMAO!!!

I have no problem in sending more troops to Iraq because the same troops are diehard Bush supporters. Let them get their legs blown off for their hero.

Link

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: brownzilla786

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CellarDoor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Call me an SOB, but 3000 deaths in 3 years in Iraq compared to 3000 deaths in New York in one day (9-11) seems like a good trade off.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum (which is saying a lot). I can't even begin to tell you how disgusting this line of thinking is to me, on so many levels.

It's so stupid that it's sig-worthy, so . . .

woohoo I am famous now

For the record I have been saying for weeks in various posts that I think post election we will take a look at our policy in Iraq and most likely change it to a degree.
Which exactly what the whole George Baker thing is about.
We certainly have to take steps to cut back on our loses, but we have to do it in a way that is smart and helps us win over terrorists in the long run.

The bring them all home now mantra that most of the Democratic party supports is not the way to do this.

You think defeating Iraq will defeat terrorism? You, sir, are retarded. Lets say we "defeat" Iraq. You dont think small groups are still going to be there, and grow and grow no matter what anyone does. This is mainly due to the fact that EVERYONE HAS RESENTMENT TOWARDS AMERICA FOR THE WAR. The longer we stay, the more people die, the more people hate us. Its just an endless cycle that wont stop, there is no winning in this war, we will come out of this war with 3000 of our men in body bags, hundreds of thousands of Iraq's children in the ground, and the middle east will focus all hatred towards america.

Mission Accomplished

You think pulling out will defeat terrorism? You, sir, are retarded.

And the middle east has hated America for decades. This isnt a new thing.

Staying in Iraq won't defeat terrorism and will increase US body count.
Leaving Iraq won't defeat terrorism but will save US lives.

Is that such a hard decision to make? :roll:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: brownzilla786

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CellarDoor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Call me an SOB, but 3000 deaths in 3 years in Iraq compared to 3000 deaths in New York in one day (9-11) seems like a good trade off.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum (which is saying a lot). I can't even begin to tell you how disgusting this line of thinking is to me, on so many levels.

It's so stupid that it's sig-worthy, so . . .

woohoo I am famous now

For the record I have been saying for weeks in various posts that I think post election we will take a look at our policy in Iraq and most likely change it to a degree.
Which exactly what the whole George Baker thing is about.
We certainly have to take steps to cut back on our loses, but we have to do it in a way that is smart and helps us win over terrorists in the long run.

The bring them all home now mantra that most of the Democratic party supports is not the way to do this.

You think defeating Iraq will defeat terrorism? You, sir, are retarded. Lets say we "defeat" Iraq. You dont think small groups are still going to be there, and grow and grow no matter what anyone does. This is mainly due to the fact that EVERYONE HAS RESENTMENT TOWARDS AMERICA FOR THE WAR. The longer we stay, the more people die, the more people hate us. Its just an endless cycle that wont stop, there is no winning in this war, we will come out of this war with 3000 of our men in body bags, hundreds of thousands of Iraq's children in the ground, and the middle east will focus all hatred towards america.

Mission Accomplished

You think pulling out will defeat terrorism? You, sir, are retarded.

And the middle east has hated America for decades. This isnt a new thing.

Staying in Iraq won't defeat terrorism and will increase US body count.
Leaving Iraq won't defeat terrorism but will save US lives.

Is that such a hard decision to make? :roll:

It would be nice if it were that easy, unfortunately some of us have to live in the real world...

 

[Lemon law]

To BarneyFife,

I am not exactly a GWB supporter---but I will not stand idly by when someone--anyone--says let our troops get their legs blown off. Thats just plain sick.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I remember when the war "ended" and many talking heads were talking about rebuilding Iraq with the oil profits, American companies opening up shop over there, and even heard making Iraq into a tourist attraction. LMAO!!!

I have no problem in sending more troops to Iraq because the same troops are diehard Bush supporters. Let them get their legs blown off for their hero.

Link

Wow, that is a pretty ignorant statement to make. How could anyone wish for someone else to have their legs blown off? You are an absolute piece of crap.

 

[fatdragondzc]

"The Death of One is a Tragedy, the death of many is mearly a number."

once we went beyond the first few deaths, the rest become statistics. Only people close to those we risk their lives care. God Bless Them.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lothar
Staying in Iraq won't defeat terrorism and will increase US body count.
Leaving Iraq won't defeat terrorism but will save US lives.

Is that such a hard decision to make? :roll:

Of course you are forgetting that one 9-11 style terror attack can result in as many deaths as we have suffered during 3 1/2 years in Iraq.

So the choice is not that easy.

So we can stay in Iraq at the cost of 700 soldiers lives a year and still have a chance to set up a stable working Iraqi government and prevent Iraq from becoming a terrorist state or have it dominated by Iran.

Or we can withdraw our troops, hand terrorists a HUGE victory, allow Iran to dominate Iraq and most likely allow Iraq to become a safe haven for terrorists. And cross our fingers and hope that we don't have 9-11 part 2.

Easy decisions are not always the best ones.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To BarneyFife,

I am not exactly a GWB supporter---but I will not stand idly by when someone--anyone--says let our troops get their legs blown off. Thats just plain sick.

They support the Republicans. They support the war. They love Limbaugh. Why do you care what happens to them? I don't. Hell, most republicans don't care either.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Banned Member with a new ISP

Originally posted by: Lothar
Staying in Iraq won't defeat terrorism and will increase US body count.
Leaving Iraq won't defeat terrorism but will save US lives.

Is that such a hard decision to make? :roll:

Of course you are forgetting that one 9-11 style terror attack can result in as many deaths as we have suffered during 3 1/2 years in Iraq.

So the choice is not that easy.

So we can stay in Iraq at the cost of 700 soldiers lives a year and still have a chance to set up a stable working Iraqi government and prevent Iraq from becoming a terrorist state or have it dominated by Iran.

Or we can withdraw our troops, hand terrorists a HUGE victory, allow Iran to dominate Iraq and most likely allow Iraq to become a safe haven for terrorists. And cross our fingers and hope that we don't have 9-11 part 2.

Easy decisions are not always the best ones.

Nope they aren't. Bush should have thought of that before he blundered into Iraq.

I think the best solution is to divide Iraq into 3 different states or even countries. Now it won't be easy,especially with the animosity between Turkey and the Kurds (but we'd also be sticking it to Iran) but at least we'd have an ally in the Kurds which would allow us to be as influential as we are now with less casualties.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lothar
Staying in Iraq won't defeat terrorism and will increase US body count.
Leaving Iraq won't defeat terrorism but will save US lives.

Is that such a hard decision to make? :roll:

Of course you are forgetting that one 9-11 style terror attack can result in as many deaths as we have suffered during 3 1/2 years in Iraq.

So the choice is not that easy.

So we can stay in Iraq at the cost of 700 soldiers lives a year and still have a chance to set up a stable working Iraqi government and prevent Iraq from becoming a terrorist state or have it dominated by Iran.

Or we can withdraw our troops, hand terrorists a HUGE victory, allow Iran to dominate Iraq and most likely allow Iraq to become a safe haven for terrorists. And cross our fingers and hope that we don't have 9-11 part 2.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...Lets get that fact straight.

If Bush didn't go sticking his nose where it didn't belong, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place or worry about 9/11 part 2.

How long does it take to form a "stable working" Iraqi government? They've had 2 elections and 3 different PM now correct?
Are we going to give them an eternity to form one or give them a timetable to form one?

At this point, anything but the "status-quo" is a better option.
Whether dividing Iraq into 3 seprate countries, giving a timetable, or a total withdrawal.

Iraq is already a safe haven for terrorists, thanks to this administration's insistence on not sending enough troops.
Are you that oblivious to the terrorist attacks that occur there almost everyday?