Iraq War now at 4,000

[arnaldoabru 11]

4 more brave American soldiers died in a bomb blast today.

'My belief is we will,in fact, be greeted as liberators"

Vice President Dick Cheney

[RunInRed 16,492]

Stop trying to change the subject from Obama pastor-gate

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Everyone here knows where I stand on this issue.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Stop trying to change the subject from Obama pastor-gate!

I'm sorry, I just thought there were some things more important than some lines taken from one's pastors serman

[lukeduke 8]

How many were lost in WWII? Vietnam? How many opposing forces have been killed or apprehended?

[RunInRed 16,492]

How many were lost in WWII? Vietnam? How many opposing forces have been killed or apprehended?

"Five years have gone by since that fateful decision. This war has now lasted longer than World War I, World War II, or the Civil War. Nearly four thousand Americans have given their lives. Thousands more have been wounded. Even under the best case scenarios, this war will cost American taxpayers well over a trillion dollars. And where are we for all of this sacrifice? We are less safe and less able to shape events abroad. We are divided at home, and our alliances around the world have been strained. The threats of a new century have roiled the waters of peace and stability, and yet America remains anchored in Iraq."

"Now we know what we’ll hear from those like John McCain who support open-ended war. They will argue that leaving Iraq is surrender. That we are emboldening the enemy. These are the mistaken and misleading arguments we hear from those who have failed to demonstrate how the war in Iraq has made us safer. Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades."

"The war in Iraq has emboldened Iran, which poses the greatest challenge to American interests in the Middle East in a generation, continuing its nuclear program and threatening our ally, Israel. Instead of the new Middle East we were promised, Hamas runs Gaza, Hizbollah flags fly from the rooftops in Sadr City, and Iran is handing out money left and right in southern Lebanon."

The war in Iraq has emboldened North Korea, which built new nuclear weapons and even tested one before the Administration finally went against its own rhetoric, and pursued diplomacy.

"The war in Iraq has emboldened the Taliban, which has rebuilt its strength since we took our eye off of Afghanistan."

"Above all, the war in Iraq has emboldened al Qaeda, whose recruitment has jumped and whose leadership enjoys a safe-haven in Pakistan - a thousand miles from Iraq."

"The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America’s enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations? That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

[CCTAU 3,349]

What is the "combat related" death toll?

Yes. Just like the good ole Rev. Wright (achmed's mentor) said, it's all our fault. If we didn't act like God and just start invading these poor innocent countries, then 9/11 would not have happened.

From a personal view, each death is a heart breaker. From a statistical view of war, this is not even a drop in the bucket. We have been fighting a WAR for five years and have lost less than a 1000 men a year (including accidents).

You lefties predicted thousands lost in a week. So we now sit here five years later, many thousand of terrorists dead and no attacks on our soil.

That's called success. But yes, we know, appeasement would be much better. Then maybe could have 3000 more civilians die in one day instead of 4000 trained defenders of our nation die in a WAR over a five year period.

Thank God we have strong people in charge when it comes to security.

[RunInRed 16,492]

First off, no one I heard on this board or elsewhere predicted thousands of losses in one week - where did you get that from?

Second answer this question: are we safer because of this war?

Then answer: how has the war in Iraq enhanced our long-term security, or will in the future?

Then answer: are Iraqis achieving the political progress necessary to end their civil war?

Then: because our military is so overstretched now, do we have the strategy or resources to deal with every other national security challenge we face?

Now...I know people like you who support open-ended war will argue that leaving Iraq is surrender. That we are emboldening the enemy. But "these are mistaken and misleading arguments from those who have failed to demonstrate how the war in Iraq has made us safer."

Finally, answer a few more questions:

1) Has the war in Iraq emboldened Iran?

"Which, poses the greatest challenge to American interests in the Middle East in a generation, continuing its nuclear program and threatening our ally, Israel. Instead of the new Middle East we were promised, Hamas runs Gaza, Hizbollah flags fly from the rooftops in Sadr City, and Iran is handing out money left and right in southern Lebanon."

2) Has the war in Iraq emboldened North Korea?

"Which built new nuclear weapons and even tested one before the Administration finally went against its own rhetoric, and pursued diplomacy

3) Has the war in Iraq emboldened the Taliban and al queda?

"Which has rebuilt its strength since we took our eye off of Afghanistan, whose recruitment has jumped, and whose leadership enjoys a safe-haven in Pakistan - a thousand miles from Iraq.

Again, "the central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America’s enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations? "

[arnaldoabru 11]

What is the "combat related" death toll?

Yes. Just like the good ole Rev. Wright (achmed's mentor) said, it's all our fault. If we didn't act like God and just start invading these poor innocent countries, then 9/11 would not have happened.

From a personal view, each death is a heart breaker. From a statistical view of war, this is not even a drop in the bucket. We have been fighting a WAR for five years and have lost less than a 1000 men a year (including accidents).

You lefties predicted thousands lost in a week. So we now sit here five years later, many thousand of terrorists dead and no attacks on our soil.

That's called success. But yes, we know, appeasement would be much better. Then maybe could have 3000 more civilians die in one day instead of 4000 trained defenders of our nation die in a WAR over a five year period.

Thank God we have strong people in charge when it comes to security.

How many lives are worth a mistake?

[CCTAU 3,349]

What is the "combat related" death toll?

Yes. Just like the good ole Rev. Wright (achmed's mentor) said, it's all our fault. If we didn't act like God and just start invading these poor innocent countries, then 9/11 would not have happened.

From a personal view, each death is a heart breaker. From a statistical view of war, this is not even a drop in the bucket. We have been fighting a WAR for five years and have lost less than a 1000 men a year (including accidents).

You lefties predicted thousands lost in a week. So we now sit here five years later, many thousand of terrorists dead and no attacks on our soil.

That's called success. But yes, we know, appeasement would be much better. Then maybe could have 3000 more civilians die in one day instead of 4000 trained defenders of our nation die in a WAR over a five year period.

Thank God we have strong people in charge when it comes to security.

How many lives are worth a mistake?

As many as it takes to keep another 3000 civilians from dying. Soldiers are trained, civilians are not. That's the difference between us. The problem is, your way of thinking puts my family in danger too. If we could pull out today and I would be assured that only the appeasers (you) and their families would be attacked, I'd say go for it. But my job is to keep my family safe. So I support the war on terror. And that includes the front in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else anti-American terrorism is rearing it's ugly head.

[CCTAU 3,349]

First off, no one I heard on this board or elsewhere predicted thousands of losses in one week - where did you get that from?

You weren't on this board when the war started, so how do you know.

You must be like 12 years old. Go look up the predictions from the left before we went in. The left predicted many thousands of our soldiers dying in the first week.

We are better off.. Innocent civilians are not being killed in this country by terrorists either directly from or funded by folks like Sadaam.

[RunInRed 16,492]

And judging by your joined date, you weren't either. How about this, when making these kinds of claims, just site your source.

As for my questions above...crickets...typical.

[arnaldoabru 11]

What is the "combat related" death toll?

Yes. Just like the good ole Rev. Wright (achmed's mentor) said, it's all our fault. If we didn't act like God and just start invading these poor innocent countries, then 9/11 would not have happened.

From a personal view, each death is a heart breaker. From a statistical view of war, this is not even a drop in the bucket. We have been fighting a WAR for five years and have lost less than a 1000 men a year (including accidents).

You lefties predicted thousands lost in a week. So we now sit here five years later, many thousand of terrorists dead and no attacks on our soil.

That's called success. But yes, we know, appeasement would be much better. Then maybe could have 3000 more civilians die in one day instead of 4000 trained defenders of our nation die in a WAR over a five year period.

Thank God we have strong people in charge when it comes to security.

How many lives are worth a mistake?

As many as it takes to keep another 3000 civilians from dying. Soldiers are trained, civilians are not. That's the difference between us. The problem is, your way of thinking puts my family in danger too. If we could pull out today and I would be assured that only the appeasers (you) and their families would be attacked, I'd say go for it. But my job is to keep my family safe. So I support the war on terror. And that includes the front in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else anti-American terrorism is rearing it's ugly head.

There is no connect between the war on terror and the war in Iraq

[CCTAU 3,349]

And judging by your joined date, you weren't either. How about this, when making these kinds of claims, just site your source.

As for my questions above...crickets...typical.

Just shows what you know. Before you spout, know your history. Some of us have been here a very long time.

Why don't you look it up? Dims predicted a devastating loss of life with an invasion into Iraq.

Those of us who have been around past the age of 12 know what has been said and what hasn't.

[arnaldoabru 11]

And judging by your joined date, you weren't either. How about this, when making these kinds of claims, just site your source.

As for my questions above...crickets...typical.

Just shows what you know. Before you spout, know your history. Some of us have been here a very long time.

Why don't you look it up? Dims predicted a devastating loss of life with an invasion into Iraq.

Those of us who have been around past the age of 12 know what has been said and what hasn't.

90,000 Iraqi civilian deaths,heard on radio today

[Tigermike 3,054]

And judging by your joined date, you weren't either. How about this, when making these kinds of claims, just site your source.

As for my questions above...crickets...typical.

Just shows what you know. Before you spout, know your history. Some of us have been here a very long time.

Why don't you look it up? Dims predicted a devastating loss of life with an invasion into Iraq.

Those of us who have been around past the age of 12 know what has been said and what hasn't.

90,000 Iraqi civilian deaths,heard on radio today

I thought Air America was off the air?

Second answer this question: are we safer because of this war?

Has the US mainland been attacked since the Taliban and Al Quada were defeated in Afganistan and Saddam and his bunch were defeated in Iraq?

How many were lost in WWII? Vietnam? How many opposing forces have been killed or apprehended?

"Five years have gone by since that fateful decision. This war has now lasted longer than World War I, World War II, or the Civil War. Nearly four thousand Americans have given their lives. Thousands more have been wounded. Even under the best case scenarios, this war will cost American taxpayers well over a trillion dollars. And where are we for all of this sacrifice? We are less safe and less able to shape events abroad. We are divided at home, and our alliances around the world have been strained. The threats of a new century have roiled the waters of peace and stability, and yet America remains anchored in Iraq."

"Now we know what we’ll hear from those like John McCain who support open-ended war. They will argue that leaving Iraq is surrender. That we are emboldening the enemy. These are the mistaken and misleading arguments we hear from those who have failed to demonstrate how the war in Iraq has made us safer. Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades."

"The war in Iraq has emboldened Iran, which poses the greatest challenge to American interests in the Middle East in a generation, continuing its nuclear program and threatening our ally, Israel. Instead of the new Middle East we were promised, Hamas runs Gaza, Hizbollah flags fly from the rooftops in Sadr City, and Iran is handing out money left and right in southern Lebanon."

The war in Iraq has emboldened North Korea, which built new nuclear weapons and even tested one before the Administration finally went against its own rhetoric, and pursued diplomacy.

"The war in Iraq has emboldened the Taliban, which has rebuilt its strength since we took our eye off of Afghanistan."

"Above all, the war in Iraq has emboldened al Qaeda, whose recruitment has jumped and whose leadership enjoys a safe-haven in Pakistan - a thousand miles from Iraq."

"The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America’s enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations? That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

So what is the dims time line for defeating world jihad sponsored by Islamofacist, murdering bastards? What is a time period that would be acceptable for you and your leftist dim buds?

[lukeduke 8]

Considering we all bow down to the great Obama and pull every soldier out of Iraq and Afghanistan RIGHT NOW, who would you blame when the next terrorist attack happens on American soil? I have a feeling that somehow it would be blamed on George W.

Wanna also break into a discussion of how Clinton had several opportunities to capture, or better yet kill, Osama bin Laden and didn't, or would that be offending your one of your true American heroes?

[RunInRed 16,492]

Iraq has NOTHING to do with the Taliban and Al Queada...who by the way, are at their strongest levels since we took our eye off the target in 2002.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Thanks for taking the time to point out how many brave heroes have given their all for country, freedom and a greater cause.

I'm sure you meant to post those sentiments, but mistakenly left them out of your post.

Many in Iraq DO see us a liberators, and continue to praise our victories each day.

(Also, not being widely reported by the MSM, Iraq marked its first day on electronic trading. A historic day as Iraq take another step forward to becoming a fully functioning, strong, independent democratic nation. )

[RunInRed 16,492]

And judging by your joined date, you weren't either. How about this, when making these kinds of claims, just site your source.

As for my questions above...crickets...typical.

Just shows what you know. Before you spout, know your history. Some of us have been here a very long time.

Why don't you look it up? Dims predicted a devastating loss of life with an invasion into Iraq.

Those of us who have been around past the age of 12 know what has been said and what hasn't.

The Iraq war started in March of '03, your join date is not until 6 months later in September. Your longevity argument is akin to McCain "time in Washington." Of course, it's not who has been here longer but who is right.

[CCTAU 3,349]

And judging by your joined date, you weren't either. How about this, when making these kinds of claims, just site your source.

As for my questions above...crickets...typical.

Just shows what you know. Before you spout, know your history. Some of us have been here a very long time.

Why don't you look it up? Dims predicted a devastating loss of life with an invasion into Iraq.

Those of us who have been around past the age of 12 know what has been said and what hasn't.

The Iraq war started in March of '03, your join date is not until 6 months later in September. Your longevity argument is akin to McCain "time in Washington." Of course, it's not who has been here longer but who is right.

I laugh at you.

There are things you don't know. You think you have the facts, but you don't. Kinda sounds like your obsession with achmed.

Look at the members by join date and then keep in mind that this is the next generation of the sight. Believe it or not, there was life before your youthful insights.

[RunInRed 16,492]

How CCTAU finds his "age-experienced facts"

1. Unfasten belt and unzip fly.

2. Drop pants

3. Bend over.

4. Reach down between legs and withdraw “fact”.

5. Hold it up and wave it around (to “air it out”) and announce a new “fact.”

[AUJarhead 70]

The Iraq war started in March of '03, your join date is not until 6 months later in September. Your longevity argument is akin to McCain "time in Washington." Of course, it's not who has been here longer but who is right.

I think he means that the board got reset in Sept 03, and everyone had to recreate their logins.

[RunInRed 16,492]

If that's the case, I stand corrected.

If any one was around back then with CCTAU - was he talking about the reasons for going to war with Iraq was not that they had WMDs but that they were "pursuing them"?

[CCTAU 3,349]

If that's the case, I stand corrected.

If any one was around back then with CCTAU - was he talking about the reasons for going to war with Iraq was not that they had WMDs but that they were "pursuing them"?

Once again you can't stay on point. Get achmed to turn sideways so you can see the screen.

The point was that there were many before the war who said we would incur thousands of casualties in the first few weeks alone. Not civilian, but military. We discussed it and even had links back then. Some even said ten thousand.

But here we are FIVE years later and have reached 4,000 of which not all are combat related. So please try and use what little intelligence you have just to keep up. Please post any other war we were in for five years that had fewer deaths.