BuffettNews.com

Catch&Release wrote:Kruisn1

Bush's administration did lie by connecting Iraq to Al Queda and by claiming that there was definitive evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Bush's administration lied when it purposefully outed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in retaliation for her husband's article showing that, contrary to the Bush administration's claims, Saddamm Hussein did NOT attempt to obtain powder cake uranium from Niger. Scooter Libby gets to go to jail (til he's pardoned in January 2008 when Bush leaves)
for being Rove/Cheney's scapegoat.

Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the US. He was a good counterbalance to the insanity that is an Iran ruled by Shiite fanatics who are developing the ability to unleash weapons of mass destruction.

Bush squandered the world's post 911 good will for the United States. He took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and now the Taliban is reorganizing to retake control of that country.

By going into Iraq when there was absolutely no need to go into Iraq, Bush turned the Middle East against the United States. Now the PLO is controlled by the extremist Hamas, Hizbollah is brazenly being funded by Iran and Iraq is amidst a civil war.

Going into Iraq was a joke, in my opinion. 4 years later the world is much more unstable. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no threat to the US posed by Iraq.

I actually think that the only way to make the damned thing right is to send in twice as many troops. Otherwise, Iraq will fall to Iranian control.

Howver, we wouldn't be in this position had Bush understood that there was a BIG reason why his daddy didn't occupy Iraq. Mainly because once Saddam was gone, the mess that we're in now would have been inevitable.

Very good analysis of a terrible mess.
Lying is never ok- just ask Nixon, Clinton, Scooter Libby, etc, etc.
Will we ever see the day when George Bush admits the Iraq War was a big mistake? I doubt it.
Son ( Bush 43 ) is making Dad ( GW 41 ) look better every day.
Somehow I don't think that was ( is ) his intention.

I've been curious about this for a long time, and anyone from either side or the middle can answer this: What does "winning" in Iraq mean? We're not fighting a country or organized group that could formally surrender to us. The enemy is likely a variety of different nationalities (Iranian, Syrian, Saudi, etc.) who simply view the United States as a common enemy and have converged in Iraq as the battlefield. How will we know we've won? When the new Iraqi govenment is established and they agree they can handle things themselves? In a situation when any civilian could be a potential enemy, how do we know when the enemy has been defeated?

Catch&Release wrote:Bush's administration lied when it purposefully outed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative

The special prosecutor who prosecuted Libby would disagree with that statement. Outing a CIA operative is illegal, nobody was charged with outing Plame. In fact, the special prosecutor knew all along who the source was (it wasn't Libby) and didn't go after him.

OystersandBeer wrote:How bad must things be for us to consider 17 deaths good news.


Please don't label me based on this answer. As I have stated in previous threads - I think they are all sh!tball muthaf....and please don't tell me if I don't like it leave because as I have stated in previous threads - I love this country

I's never good news when someone dies but it is getting better which is good news. Stay positive.

smacky wrote:I've been curious about this for a long time, and anyone from either side or the middle can answer this: What does "winning" in Iraq mean? We're not fighting a country or organized group that could formally surrender to us. The enemy is likely a variety of different nationalities (Iranian, Syrian, Saudi, etc.) who simply view the United States as a common enemy and have converged in Iraq as the battlefield. How will we know we've won? When the new Iraqi govenment is established and they agree they can handle things themselves? In a situation when any civilian could be a potential enemy, how do we know when the enemy has been defeated?

way-oversimplified version of winning-
when a democratically elected gov in Iraq is stabilized and has reasonable control of a unified/strong Iraqi military and security force as well as the capabilities to protect and defend the Iraqi people, their industrial interests and infrastructure (roads, utilities, schools, air traffic, borders, etc.)

Additionally, when we are confident that we can withdraw the majority of our combat troops without Iran swooping in to fill the power void.

Remember the reason for the strong insurgency - the folks you described as a "variety of different nationalities (Iranian, Syrian, Saudi, etc.) who simply view the United States as a common enemy and have converged in Iraq as the battlefield" - all those people are there because they view any democracy in the Arab world as a direct threat to their source of power. They feel that they must crush all thoughts of democracy in Iraq lest they spread to their own countries. Think about the types of government found in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. They FEAR democracy for a reason. We can't play into the hands of the terrorists and allow them to control our national will through the acts of cowards like some EU countries have done in the past. Never be afraid to do the right thing.

Caribbean Soul Man wrote:

smacky wrote:I've been curious about this for a long time, and anyone from either side or the middle can answer this: What does "winning" in Iraq mean? We're not fighting a country or organized group that could formally surrender to us. The enemy is likely a variety of different nationalities (Iranian, Syrian, Saudi, etc.) who simply view the United States as a common enemy and have converged in Iraq as the battlefield. How will we know we've won? When the new Iraqi govenment is established and they agree they can handle things themselves? In a situation when any civilian could be a potential enemy, how do we know when the enemy has been defeated?

way-oversimplified version of winning-
when a democratically elected gov in Iraq is stabilized and has reasonable control of a unified/strong Iraqi military and security force as well as the capabilities to protect and defend the Iraqi people, their industrial interests and infrastructure (roads, utilities, schools, air traffic, borders, etc.)

Additionally, when we are confident that we can withdraw the majority of our combat troops without Iran swooping in to fill the power void.

Remember the reason for the strong insurgency - the folks you described as a "variety of different nationalities (Iranian, Syrian, Saudi, etc.) who simply view the United States as a common enemy and have converged in Iraq as the battlefield" - all those people are there because they view any democracy in the Arab world as a direct threat to their source of power. They feel that they must crush all thoughts of democracy in Iraq lest they spread to their own countries. Think about the types of government found in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. They FEAR democracy for a reason. We can't play into the hands of the terrorists and allow them to control our national will through the acts of cowards like some EU countries have done in the past. Never be afraid to do the right thing.

Well said.

This whole thread is based on an untrue premise. There have been 44 American troops killed in Iraq already in March which equals about 100 a month which is about normal with or without the troop surge. So the first sign of some so called progress turns out to be another twisted scam by this administration and the kool aid drinkers that will never admit we are in over our heads and we can't impose our will in this situation.

BrianM wrote:This whole thread is based on an untrue premise. There have been 44 American troops killed in Iraq already in March which equals about 100 a month which is about normal with or without the troop surge. So the first sign of some so called progress turns out to be another twisted scam by this administration and the kool aid drinkers that will never admit we are in over our heads and we can't impose our will in this situation.

The over all number of dead and wounded between mid Feb and Mid Mar is down 60%. Stop being so pessimistic.

This story was on CNN this morning, saying pretty much the same thing the first post stated.

CNN says 44 American troops have been killed in March already, call me a pessamist, but that's not progress.

If this positive trend continues, it will soon be safer in Iraq than it is in Philadelphia.

SharkOnLand wrote:

I'll take "Things on a rabbit" for 200 Alex!

(Oops, this ain't the caption it thread...sorry)

Casualty Notes

Monthly Summaries References
Month US
Named
Dead
* US
Reported
Dead
** US
Wounded
***
**** US Army Evacuations from Iraq
Wounded
In Action
***** Non-Battle
Injury
***** Disease
*****
March 2003 65 0 202 930 3212 5846
April 2003 73 0 340
TOTAL 138 0 542
May 37 0 54
June 30 0 147
July 47 0 226
August 35 0 181
September 30 0 247
October 43 0 413
November 82 0 337
December 40 0 261
January 2004 47 0 188
February 19 0 150
March 52 0 323 49 206 367
April 135 12 1214 203 355 262
May 80 8 757 106 348 146
June 42 2 589 141 138 389
July 54 7 552 71 157 337
August 66 5 895 139 74 379
September 81 3 706 122 84 391
October 63 5 647 100 94 457
November 137 3 1427 149 96 323
December 72 1 540 477 379 1474
January 2005 107 1 496 85 129 324
February 58 4 409 77 100 280
March 36 0 364 74 104 342
April 52 0 590 90 113 302
May 79 3 385 85 119 306
June 77 0 501 110 98 359
July 54 1 473 73 117 315
August 84 1 451 81 99 273
September 48 6 490 122 118 258
October 96 0 608 Not currently released
November 83 5 518
December 66 1 304
January 2006 61 4 521
February 53 3 300
March 30 3 475
April 74 7 481
May 69 2 422
June 59 2 512
July 42 9 574
August 65 5 503
September 70 7 776
October 100 11 870
November 63 13 502
December 105 12 644
January 2007 82 10 714
February 80 7 398
March 37 6 247
Subtotal 3,160 84 23,924 2,913 5,876 11,959
TOTAL 3,244 20,748 as of 01 Oct 05
* Includes both hostile killed and non-hostile killed
** Reported Killed but Unidentified Pending Notification of Next of Kin
*** Included both Wounded in Action and non-hostile prior to 01 Apr 04
**** Includes only Wounded in Action since 01 Apr 04
***** Excludes all non-Army troops, and all troops treated in theater
See the Casualty Notes for explanations.


I hate to be a pessamist, but according to this chart and my research, this is tracking to be the deadliest March since this war started. I still contend that this troop surge was just another horrible strategy from this administration. They won't listen to anyone's opinion if it differs from theirs and it has led to a horrible situation over there with no signs of getting better.