News, President Bush: Iraq war was a success and will end in victory. (Congress, enemy)

[LNTT_Vacationer]

Originally Posted by lionking

Because of this this war has actually created less security for the USA . . . .

Facts just don't bear this out. The US was under a constant state of attack prior to finally taking the fight to al-Qaeda. Embassies, ships, buildings, etc. Clinton and co. claiming peace just because we stood around getting our nose bloodied is not the peace I want. I don't care what some al-Qaeda recruit thinks of the US; I'm not looking for his love. Just that he isn't permitted to bring his hate to the US in the way of an airplane missile.

[GregW]

What makes you believe that our current policies and actions have prevented al-Quida from doing anything they want anywhere they want? I believe they are concentrating their activities in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan where the recruits are more available. Eventually they will get back to the US and central Europe with some spectacular but ineffective terrorist incident.

I think we should just get out of the entire area and let them figure out or fight out just who is in charge of what? It is not our fight or in our interest to interfere. In any case, the underground oil will still be there and likely will be recovered and sold to the highest bidder by whoever winds up controlling the area. I do not foresee any attempt by these cultures to use their oil profits to industrialize because they have no reason to create an industrialized working or middle class that would interfere with the privilege of the aristocracy.

We never should have been there in the first place and we should get out immediately and stop supporting any of the governments in the area. That includes both Israel and Pakistan.

[ReefAreCoolToo]

Interesting Statistic

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S. involvement in Iraq , here is a sobering statistic:

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,867 deaths.
That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington & Iraq too lol

[katzenfreund]

I wonder how those statistics would look if you figured in the deaths in Iraq of those that are not US troops. Or do they not count? Your death rate of 60 per 100.000 would look a bit different.

[GregW]

We never count the untermench - R. Cheney

[burdell]

Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer

Facts just don't bear this out. The US was under a constant state of attack prior to finally taking the fight to al-Qaeda. Embassies, ships, buildings, etc. Clinton and co. claiming peace just because we stood around getting our nose bloodied is not the peace I want. I don't care what some al-Qaeda recruit thinks of the US; I'm not looking for his love. Just that he isn't permitted to bring his hate to the US in the way of an airplane missile.

You mean the airplane missiles Iraq had nothing to do with

The airplanes missiles completely outside Saddam's sphere of influence

[tablemtn]

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,867 deaths.
That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.

Those statistics don't add up. 2,867 deaths in a population of 160,000 is actually a death rate of 1,791.875 per 100,000. Of course, due to troop rotations, there are more than 160,000 discrete persons who have passed through Iraq in total.

But I've seen these "Iraq is safer than DC" comparisons before, and the math is always wrong. Furthermore, I think it diminishes the dangerousness and difficulty of what soldiers actually have to endure. You're basically telling them "Hey, quit whining, you're safer than you'd be in DC!"

When, of course, that is absolutely not so.

[LNTT_Vacationer]

Spin it whatever way you wish but the undeniable fact is that the attacks on US embassies, ships and bombing of buildings has decreased drastically since Bush came to office and went after the perps.

[tablemtn]

Given that the perps were based in Afghanistan, what does that have to do with our potentially $3 trillion war in Iraq?

Just out of curiosity, how do you think America should finance that massive and ongoing cost at a time when the economy is flagging, and programs like Medicare and Social Security are about to balloon in cost?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer

Spin it whatever way you wish but the undeniable fact is that the attacks on US embassies, ships and bombing of buildings has decreased drastically since Bush came to office and went after the perps.

Could be true,though the fact that Al-Qaeda were in bed with the Taliban and we are in Afghanistan could have more to do with it but does being in Iraq?

One could argue that "well he gased his own people the Kurds",but then again we left them high and dry also.One could argue that Democrats said Sadam Hussin was a threat also but if it were not for 9-11 would any president had the clout to send troops into Iraq?

Long term consqeuences I'm seeing is Middle Easteners who might not have cared about America enough to fight are now rallied to fight us because of Iraq while before it was a select few Al-Qaeda members.

In Iran there are many people who have no hate for America while their leader may be hostile.They may not support Iranian leaders yet if we occupied Iran many would turn their anger toward us just because we are invaders,which otherwise they may have brought social change internally without us attacking.