Understand that we all care about the number of military lives lost over the past few years, but buy pointing out, for only political reason's the lives lost in the war and not hear in the US does mean to an extent that there is a political agenda.

 

Thought this thread was about Al Quedia which does bring military deaths into the conversation. Abortion deaths or US citizens killing each other was brought into the discussion for some reason I don't understand. To say he shamed every soldier that died in Iraq is quite a stretch. You also seem into us flexing our military muscle just to show people we don't mess around.

Technically isn't it one war, being fought on two different fronts? I mean it's the "war on terror", is it not...

 

No, it is not one war. It never was one war. Calling both Iraq and Afghanistan two fronts in the "war on terror" merely lets the same people who created this mess define the terms. It is overly simplistic to speak of them as one war and that is part of the reason they have each been mismanaged.

No but 70-80% of Americans polled during 2003 which led up to the war supported it. Justification can never be found in war, it doesn't work that way. Reasons for going will always be questioned, even by those who at the time supported the move. Though often times they'll later say that they were mislead or that the info wasn't good, and just pass the blame along. Bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of Americans supported the war in Iraq, now everything after that is a whole other story.

 

 

Yes, and all Americans were misled by the Bush administration about 1) the certainty of Saddam's possession of WMD's and WMD programs 2) the "imminent" threat that the U.S. would be attacked by (nonexistent) Iraqi WMD's and 3) the completely fabricated link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.

 

Your 'overwhelming majority' argument is overwhelmingly flawed.

Why is it I never hear you guys talk about the number of people murdered in American cities (like Chicago) every day, every month, every year? They're much greater numbers than that in Iraq.

 

 

This is also a silly argument. The murder of people in American cities is not the result of a voluntary policy decision.

One war. Two fronts. Thousands of terrorists dead.

Funny thing is if this were reversed and Al Qaeda endorsed Obama, it would be a much bigger deal...

^Yup.

Because I'm tired of you guys ignoring the fact that we went in on what was bad Intel. A mistake, yes, but we were already there so now we have to clean it up. Both sides agreed to go and voted to do so. So by all means, continue with the ridiculous over-generalizations and convenient labeling in lieu of a substantive argument.

 

And I am amazed that the number of innocent people murdered in this country are ignored by so many on this board because they can't attach Bush's name to it.

 

 

 

Nobody is ignoring anything. You seem to gloss over some inconvenient details. The President had the country's ear following 9/11 and he stirred the pot with a lot of cherry-picked, sensationalized intel to build political support for a war that was completely arbitrary, not in response to an imminent threat, and unrelated to 9/11. We now know that there was plenty of conflicting counsel to the President's preferred course of action--an invasion of Iraq and 'regime change'. He chose to rush into an unnecessary war. Period.

 

Your attempt to divert the subject to the number of murders in the U.S. proves that you've run out of cogent arguments to support the Iraq war.

One war. Two fronts. Thousands of terrorists dead.

 

Thousands of terrorists recruited. A post-Iraq invasion National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the Iraq war has become a cause celebre for extremists in their recruitment efforts. The Bush administration is now considering negotiating with the Taliban because we don't have enough military resources in Afghanistan to fight the important war we need to fight.

 

Bush's war in Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster in the U.S. effort to fight the real War on Terror.

Funny thing is if this were reversed and Al Qaeda endorsed Obama, it would be a much bigger deal...

 

IMO they really did endorse Obama by endorsing McCain . What American (true American) would want what they want? They know that.

I personally think the whole Al-Qeada endorsing anyone or anything in America is a joke/laughable and pay absolutely no attention to anything they say.

One war. Two fronts. Thousands of terrorists dead.

 

I certainly can't argue with that.

 

(btw way, I love the avatar Hoot. Gibson is imo is arguably the best right hander of all time. He was Awesome. I had the pleasure of watching him work.pitch in Cincy one time).

Nobody is ignoring anything. You seem to gloss over some inconvenient details. The President had the country's ear following 9/11 and he stirred the pot with a lot of cherry-picked, sensationalized intel to build political support for a war that was completely arbitrary, not in response to an imminent threat, and unrelated to 9/11. We now know that there was plenty of conflicting counsel to the President's preferred course of action--an invasion of Iraq and 'regime change'. He chose to rush into an unnecessary war. Period.

 

Your attempt to divert the subject to the number of murders in the U.S. proves that you've run out of cogent arguments to support the Iraq war.

Wrong. Just that simple.

Hilarious. Did a quick search, couldn’t find anything and had to fall back on this thread when I corrected Henry on the death toll? I’ve never based my argument against the invasion on the death toll, no matter how regrettable it is. You’re the one throwing around the accusation that I don’t have standing to discuss the war because I don’t value all life. That is insulting and it is the entirety of your argument. And no, I’m not offended, but I will defend myself.

I didn't say you don’t have standing to discuss the war because you don’t value all life. I just said it's funny how you and others talk about the number of deaths in the war and don't talk about the number of murders in our own country, which is fact. I, again, stand by my statement.

 

My original statement:

 

Why is it I never hear you guys talk about the number of people murdered in American cities (like Chicago) every day, every month, every year? They're much greater numbers than that in Iraq.

Never said once you didn't value all life. Just asked a simple question which apparently struck a nerve.

Wouldn't that be up to me to decide what I think is grounds for argument on a subject?

That's fine but I'll continue to find it laughable every time you accuse me of something based on the grounds that I didn't say something.

Understand that we all care about the number of military lives lost over the past few years, but buy pointing out, for only political reason's the lives lost in the war and not hear in the US does mean to an extent that there is a political agenda.

I have no idea what you're talking about.