Iraqi War officially negated.

7 BAGHDAD, Iraq Dec 26, 2006 (AP)— Three more American soldiers were killed in Iraq, officials said Tuesday, pushing the U.S. military death toll to at least 2,975 two more than the number killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The tragic milestone came wi110th the deaths of the three soldiers Monday in two separate bomb explosions southwest of Baghdad, the military said.

Linkage

AND gas has been going up constantly since 02' thats 0 for 2 >_<

...so what? Can you tell me how many Americans have died due to terrorist attacks by Al-Queda or other terrorist groups? September 11th was not the start of the war. We were under attack since the 1990's and we just didn't pay any attention to it.

...so what? Can you tell me how many Iraqis have died due to terrorist attacks by America or other terrorist groups?

fixed.

So, the United States should've stopped back in '42 after 2,403 KIA's? (During the same time you'd probably be joining your ideological cohorts in asking "why are we attacking Germany and Italy, when Japan attacked us???" on teh intarweb message boards.)

...so what? Can you tell me how many Iraqis have died due to terrorist attacks by America...?

fixed.

Fixed? What's "fixed" about changing what Riot wrote into a question which has a part-answer of zero?

Other than to fail at making some sort of political statement that's entirely disingenuous? Speaking of which:

AND gas has been going up constantly since 02'

Last edited by benji on Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I thought over 10,000 people died in September 11...

This is a pretty stupid point to make though, since no matter what the stats are, some people will be against the war, and some people will be for it. Stats are fucking useless when you're opinion is 110% right

It is not the pure number of lives lost on September 11th that were lost but how and why they were lost. They were murdered because of the country they belong to. They were the direct victims and targets of the attack. It was an attack on innocence and on the free world.

You are forgetting the War on Terror, which has brought many more loss of lives. If you wanted to play the number game then you could have used this months ago due to the fact that the reason why we are in dozens of countries is because of that day and the attacks that were before it.

I'm not quite sure what the point of this thread is or what the point of the news media bringing this up is. Does this justify something? What am I missing here?

I'm not quite sure what the point of this thread is or what the point of the news media bringing this up is. Does this justify something? What am I missing here?

The point of this thread is plainly obvious - its bullshit someone came up with the try and further denegrate Bush and the war in Iraq...

Its not going to change anyones opinion, its just going to flare arguments and all that...

CLINTON SUCKS...THE END.

^The most of presidents all over the world suck/sucked...

CLINTON SUCKS...THE END.

Doesnt Monica suck?


someone had to say it...

...so what? Can you tell me how many Americans have died due to terrorist attacks by Al-Queda or other terrorist groups? September 11th was not the start of the war. We were under attack since the 1990's and we just didn't pay any attention to it.

Exactly.. because Bill Clinton was president. Clinton didn't do anything about Al-Queda. At least Bush is trying to put an end to it. So can all the Bush-Haters please stop because at least he's man enough to try and take down these terrorist retards.

Am I right?

No, you're not.

I don't get how you can say the war is "negated." Nobody ever said that the objective was to win the war on terror and also lose less lives than where lost on 911. It's because none of the past presidents really did anything about terrorism. I don't believe Clinton was a bad president because he wasn't so far on one side. He wasn't stupid liberal or cold-heart conservative, he had a nice balance if a little on the liberal side.

Yet, he did let terrorism build up and refused to face it head on. He was afraid to get himself into the mess because everything was going so well for him. America was attacked numerous times during his Presidency and everytime he vowed to bring those responsible to justice. He never fully went after them though. His promises were broken to the families that lost loved ones.

You can't say it is President Clinton's fault and you can't say it is President Bush's fault. Why don't we start looking at who really is to blame; the fucking crazy terrorists. It seems as though they get a free ride when in these discussions. They wanted war and now they have it. They are not the victims here. They rattled our cage a few too many times to be victims.

It's not that Clinton was a bad president, it's that he was a negligible president, much like the decade of the 90s. Much like the one right before him, H.W. Bush.

Both had their relevant moments (Gulf War, Impeachment) but mostly they were at the whim of Congress.

From 1989-1994, the Democrats controlled Congress so you had the failures of the Budget bills of 1990 and 1993, the ADA, Brady Bill and the attempts at HillaryCare and Campaign Finance Reform. From 1995-1998 there was an effective Republican Congress, so it passed things like Welfare Reform and Tax Reform of 1997. Along with "centrist" measures like Communications Decency, Telecom Reform, Defense of Marriage, Iraq Liberation and Minimum Wage Increase.

The Republican Congress tempered Clinton and saved his domestic legacy as his two great achievements are Welfare Reform and the 1997 Tax Reform (one could argue the latter a ton more than the former), but Republican initiatives he took on as part of triangulation. (The last great achievement being NAFTA's completion.)

On foreign policy, you can't really consider Clinton anything but a failure. He failed at the Arab-Israeli conflict, what was (by his own words) his attempt at a "legacy." He deployed American troops more than all other presidents combined, ignored the UN on bombing Serbia, and enacted regime change in Haiti. (All similar to current criticisms of Bush, by those who adore Clinton.) He completely and absolutely ignored the threat of Islamism, an American WARSHIP was attacked and he did absolutely nothing, Embassies were bombed and he did nothing, the World Trade Center was bombed and he did nothing. His administration covered up ties to states in the Middle East of numerous bombings including Oklahoma City, WTC93 and Khobar Towers out of fear that Americans would demand action against those states.

People consider Clinton a great president because they only remember extremes, (of which he had none) because they think of the 1990s as the "good old times" (when life today is clearly so much better) because of the end of the decade bubble and the vacation from history we were on.

Infact, Clinton, in and of himself represents the 90s perfectly. An unserious irrelevant President for a unserious irrelevant decade. America took a break in the 90s, we lived it up and worried about things like O.J. Simpson and a stain on a dress. The Soviet Union was no more, so we could. In that regard, Clinton can't be blamed too harshly if he took a break with the rest of us.

7 BAGHDAD, Iraq Dec 26, 2006 (AP)— Three more American soldiers were killed in Iraq, officials said Tuesday, pushing the U.S. military death toll to at least 2,975 two more than the number killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The tragic milestone came wi110th the deaths of the three soldiers Monday in two separate bomb explosions southwest of Baghdad, the military said.

Linkage

AND gas has been going up constantly since 02' thats 0 for 2 >_<

While i dont agree with the way the war is being handled now: i've said it once and i'll say it again: YOU CANNOT WIN A WAR ON AN IDEA. The war on terror will never end because it is war against an abstract idea that you can never eliminate. If you pay attention however, the war on terror is separate from the going ons in Iraq: i believe they're in the 3rd operation in Iraq now. Anyway. my take on it has always been this: while we needed to get Saddam out, i simply do not agree with the "confidential information" covering up style of telling the american public. Bush had to say Saddam was a threat to us to get an attack approved. Turns out this may or may not have been the case. Do the ends justify the means? maybe not, but hey, we cant back out at this point. Also, if we're going to attack due to threat; it's time to be consistent: the nutjob in Iran and the nutjob in North Korea have directly said "america needs to be abolished"...if we're going to attack based on "threat." Yes i know bush went against the UN but come on, what real power does the UN have? Not shit really. Its all alot of hot air, they have no true way of enforcing anything. I'm not pro-bush, i'm not anti-bush. You have to throw ideas in your head and swish them around to make your decision. Do i think we needed to get saddam out of power? sure. Do i agree with how we did so? no. Do i agree with cut and run even though i want the boys back home? no. You can be logical about this kind of thing and not just deliver party lines over and over people. I know we have alot of foreigners on this board and i'm sure america looks like a bunch of cocky assholes. And to tell you the truth: most that i encounter are, no use denying it. The US made its bed and now we have to lie in it. We did elect Bush twice (not by popular vote but by our system, he did win) so any gripes we have about him is our own faults. People need to stop thinking about party's and think about real life and logic. I dont support war whatsoever, but hey; if we're gonna start it we might as well finish.

Sorry guys that was kind of rambling; hopefully it made some sense.

While i dont agree with the way the war is being handled now: i've said it once and i'll say it again: YOU CANNOT WIN A WAR ON AN IDEA.

You can win the War on Terror by defeating the terrorists. Obviously, it is not a war that will be over soon. It is a war against the evil minds that want to destroy freedom and innocent lives. Think of it as War on Terrorists. Don't take the term War on Terror so literally.

The war on terror will never end because it is war against an abstract idea that you can never eliminate.

The War on Terror will eventually end. You can win it by continuing to eliminate the funds and threat that those who believe in such an awful ideal recieve.

We did elect Bush twice (not by popular vote but by our system, he did win)

Actually, President Bush did win the popular vote in the last election against John Kerry. In fact, he had the highest amount of popular vote in American history.

Riot, to believe you can wipe out people who dont like you and evil without the support of the rest of the world (which we dont have) is absurd. It wont happen. There will always be evil and there will always be places to hide and funds to launder. I agree with being awful to want to destroy innocent lives. However: to them they have the freedom...their belief system, while not the same as us is something they'd give their lives for. Thats more than most Americans feel about ANYTHING. Now if they were intelligent and not just advanced cultists: they'd be more subtle and not destroy innocents...but no one said easily led people were smart....

the second time sure he won by popular vote, but if he hadnt won in 2000, would he have run again or not? i think not and i know many people who voted bush solely because he was the incumbent: stupid yes...but hey, maybe it helped him get that vote...there's no way to prove one way or the other.

You can win the War on Terror by defeating the terrorists.

I don't think terrorism can be stopped. It's an ideology that's a force beyond funding or weapons that's difficult and perhaps impossible to control.

You can win the War on Terror by defeating the terrorists.

I don't think terrorism can be stopped. It's an ideology that's a force beyond funding or weapons that's difficult and perhaps impossible to control.

no kidding. you'd think it'd take a rocket scientist to figure it out, but no worries, riot's got it all covered...

You can win the War on Terror by defeating the terrorists.

I don't think terrorism can be stopped. It's an ideology that's a force beyond funding or weapons that's difficult and perhaps impossible to control.

no kidding. you'd think it'd take a rocket scientist to figure it out, but no worries, riot's got it all covered...

You can win the War on Terror. My question to you guys is this. If you guys are so hell bent on saying it is impossible to win the War on Terror what would you do if you were President Bush? Would you refuse to go after terrorists because we can't "win"? You can't sit around and expect this threat to go away. That is what we did in the 1990's and look what happened. The only way to eliminate the threat is to eliminate them. Bottom line. It is a problem with no real solution but guess what? At least President Bush believes in a solution is carrying it out with all of his heart. I really don't see another way this thing could be carried out, either. A worldwide fight against terrorism is the only way to go.

And Illini, we do have the support of the world and the United Nations in the War on Terror. There are quite a few nations helping us out in the war.

Riot, you attack in individual operations the terrorist threat to us. I dont see us going into south america and stopping the countless terrorists there. We are after Al-Qaeda and many other "islam fanaticism" based groups because they are the threat to us. It is not a war on terror, its war on THAT terror, there is a difference. I would've been fine with bush if he hadnt said god had told him to go into Iraq. Also the terrorists who got us on 9/11....weren't they mostly Saudi? We didnt attack them because of a select few people in their country. I'm not against the idea; i'm just asking for consistency. If one guy is a threat (saddam), why is this guy not (N korea or any south american dictator?)? if this is terrorism, why is this not? (see previous examples) etc.

I would've been fine with bush if he hadnt said god had told him to go into Iraq. The christian god never would support war. But i am glad you saw my point about iraq operations being separate from the war on terror, good call on the support from other countries on that, i messed up and meant to say iraq.

About the support: the other countries that are even close to being world powers (other than britain cuz tony blair is bush's heterosexual life mate) hate us for doing it, and thats what matters. It doesnt matter how many countries like papua new guinea are on our side.

You make some good points but there are a few things wrong with your logic. I'll try to point it out.

Riot, you attack in individual operations the terrorist threat to us. I dont see us going into south america and stopping the countless terrorists there.

We aren't in South America doing counter-terrorism operations but we are in other place besides the Middle East. All you hear about in the media is Afghanistan and Iraq but in reality we have troops all over the world fighting this war. You want examples? We have troops in Africa fighting the War on Terror. It is an extension of Operation Enduring Freedom and the target is not a specific group. Instead, our troops are focused on stopping all terrorist activities and recruitment stations. There are over 2,000 troops in Africa (at the base Horn of Africa) fighting the War on Terror in Djibouti, Africa.

We also have troops and naval fleets in Europe to stop terrorism. This is called Operation Active Endeavour and is mostly aimed at stopping terrorists from transporting weapons of mass destruction and other potentially harmful objects across the Mediterranean Sea.

Here is a list the other locations that the War on Terror is being fought in:
Lebanon
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Indonesia
Philippines

That is all the locations I have heard of in reports. There probably is more.

We are after Al-Qaeda and many other "islam fanaticism" based groups because they are the threat to us. It is not a war on terror, its war on THAT terror, there is a difference.

We are after terror, period. We are after all terror that is a threat to innocent lives. So therefore you are right...we are against groups that are a threat to us. I don't see excatly what is wrong with that logic though. Shouldn't we go after those who are a threat to us?

I would've been fine with bush if he hadnt said god had told him to go into Iraq.

I didn't really care for those comments either but who cares? Are you saying if he didn't say that you would support the war? Who cares what the President says. If you support the cause you should support the war.

Also the terrorists who got us on 9/11....weren't they mostly Saudi? We didnt attack them because of a select few people in their country. I'm not against the idea; i'm just asking for consistency.

The guys were from Saudi but they weren't trained in Saudi. There is inserguency in Saudi Arabia and it is being fought against but the main focus is directed at Iraq and Afghanistan right now. The goal is to make those two functional democracies so the Middle East has some sort of beacon of freedom there to deter the terrorists from "setting up shop" there. Right now, it's a melting pot for terrorists and if we can get an American influence there we can hopefully chase them out of there. That is the idea, at least.

If one guy is a threat (saddam), why is this guy not (N korea or any south american dictator?)? if this is terrorism, why is this not? (see previous examples) etc.

We cannot fight all these wars at once. We already have two major military conflicts going on at this stage. We really cannot afford to create a third. That is why we are taking a much more diplomatic stance right now and trying to let China, Japan and the United Nations sort out this whole North Korea mess.

About the support: the other countries that are even close to being world powers (other than britain cuz tony blair is bush's heterosexual life mate) hate us for doing it, and thats what matters. It doesnt matter how many countries like papua new guinea are on our side.

Well, that isn't excatly true. Let me list for you all the countries that are actively fighting in the War on Terror next to America. You'd be surprised at some of the names. You need to remember that many, many countries had our backs in the War on Terror. It is the War in Iraq that so many people refused to help us in. The War on Terror is still very much a global effort.

-United Kingdom
-Republic of Korea
-Australia
-Denmark
-Romania
-Poland
-El Salvador
-Azerbaijan
-Slovakia
-Latvia
-Mongolia
-Latvia
-Georgia
-Albania
-Canada
-Czech Republic
-Armenia
-Lithuania
-Bosnia
-Moldova
-Kazakhstan
-Macedonia
-Estonia
-Japan (recently withdrew)
-Italy (recently withdrew)

Then there is also a few other countries that did support us but then withdrew because they either lost support or they just ran out of funds to continue a military operation. Here is the list of those countries but keep in mind these countries no longer do take part in the actions.

-New Zealand
-Portugal
-Netherlands
-Ukraine
-Bulgaria
-Nicragua
-Spain
-Norway
-Philippines
-Domincan Republic
-Thailand
-Hungary
-Singapore
-Honduras
-Iceland
-Tonga

As you can see...this was (and still is) a worldwide conflict and united effort against the War on Terror. Once again, this war is not being fought soley in Iraq and the Middle East and it isn't a War on Al Queda. That is all you hear about but we have thousands and thousands of troops world wide fighting this battle every day. We have dozens and dozens of active spots across the globe in this war. This is a global war and not limited to one location or one enemy. That is why this is such a tough war to win but it can be done. The focus right now is on the Middle East but we still aren't blind to the rest of the world. We realize terrorism is everywhere. Hell, we're fighting terrorism right here in America.

I'm noticing a trend in the world today, a trend that shows up on these boards and specifically in this thread. It really saddens me. People today are lazy and worthless. You all argue that we can't win the war on terror so we should stop wasting our time in Iraq. Sometimes winning isn't the point. Sometimes its the fighting. Just because we can never completely eliminate terrorism doesn't mean we shouldn't try does it? Don't you think we should at least stand up for ourselves. Everyone these days just assumes that things are going to end up terrible and decides that trying to prevent it is pointless. The war on drugs is another example. We'll never completely eliminate drug use, but should we just sit back and watch or should we fight it? We are never going to eliminate rape and murder, but should we just sit back and watch, or should we try and fight it? People these days take the easy way out far too often.

apologies for spelling...did this very very quickly...

i've said it once and i'll say it again: YOU CANNOT WIN A WAR ON AN IDEA. The war on terror will never end because it is war against an abstract idea that you can never eliminate.

Just because of a mislabeling five years ago doesn't grant you authority to be ignorant. It's clearly a war against Islamism, just because it's called "War on Terror" doesn't mean it's actually a war against the act of terrorism. Sometimes it was 90 degrees during the Cold War.

If you pay attention however, the war on terror is separate from the going ons in Iraq

Is it? Even looking at just terrorist groups, there seems to be quite a few of them operating in Iraq that American troops are killing. Just because you don't want it to be connected doesn't mean it isn't.

Bush had to say Saddam was a threat to us to get an attack approved.

And there's no doubt Saddam was a threat. As Bush noted, he wasn't an imminent threat, but he was a threat nonetheless. The entire world agreed upon that fact.

Also, if we're going to attack due to threat; it's time to be consistent: the nutjob in Iran and the nutjob in North Korea have directly said "america needs to be abolished"...if we're going to attack based on "threat."

Funny, Saddam said the same things over a decade before the Poison Dwarf and Kim Jong were twinkles in the media's eye.

Are you advocating an attack on North Korea in 2003? Before they were officially nuclear, and didn't (well, they still don't) have a real missle system? And on Iran back then too? Leaving Saddam free without the bondage of sanctions?

In the simpliest of terms. Iraq was attacked, Iran and NK are borderline nuclear. If NK was attacked, Iran and Iraq would be. If Iran was, it'd be Iraq and NK.

As explained a million times, Iraq was the best option first. Unfortunately we've gotten proccupied with Iraq, and effectively ignore Iran, instead of spreading the war there.

Do i think we needed to get saddam out of power? sure. Do i agree with how we did so? no.

And you would have done so how? By letting sanctions lapse, allowing him to regain power and possibly nuclear arms? We shouldn't forget that that was the other option in March 2003.

(not by popular vote but by our system, he did win)

I don't get this "popular" vote crap. Do we deny Clinton and Wilson's presidencies because they didn't get majorities? No. Do we deny Harrison's presidency because he lost the popular vote? No. You claim you aren't partisan, but that's nothing but a partisan shot.

Also the terrorists who got us on 9/11....weren't they mostly Saudi? We didnt attack them because of a select few people in their country. I'm not against the idea; i'm just asking for consistency. If one guy is a threat (saddam), why is this guy not (N korea or any south american dictator?)? if this is terrorism, why is this not? (see previous examples) etc.

You're searching for relativism where there's degrees. If a German member of the IRA shoots up some Irish, they don't attack Germany. Chavez is a threat (in his own mind more than in real life) but he is more so than a sanctionless Saddam? No.

About the support: the other countries that are even close to being world powers (other than britain cuz tony blair is bush's heterosexual life mate) hate us for doing it, and thats what matters.

Um, who else is close to being a world power? There's only China, and they're just generally opposed to us, especially when we take away their backdoor oil. (Which is why France is angry, but they're not a world power despite what they think.)

It doesnt matter how many countries like papua new guinea are on our side.

Maybe it's the disparagement of our allies and disrespect of their sacrifices by certain people* which makes them not want to help.

There is no "War on Terror" because like the "War on Poverty" and "War on Drugs" that's meaningless and worthless. It should be, and for the most part is, active policy of the world to combat terrorist groups. But on a greater scale, we're in a war with Islamism, the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of that war. The goal of what's called the "War on Terror" isn't to eliminate terrorism, but to dry the swamp, and therefore limit the creation of terrorist groups.

World War IV, the war against Islamism, will end when Islamism is put on the ash heap of history with Communism, Fascism and Monarchism. Or the West gives up and loses. Whichever comes first.

*"I have the hat to this day. I have the hat"

Christopherson: this is going to turn into the drug thread all over again... Winning isnt the point? Tell that to the wounded and dead from our current operations. We arent exactly inspiring an uprising against terrorism with fighting this battle, which is when FIGHTING can become more important than the actual winning....

Riot while those are alot of countries: most of them are even younger than we are and in my opinion half of them are only siding with us so they dont get added to the axis of evil...but thats my personal opinion. i dont live in those countries so who knows...

Now on to benji

Let us rephrase. There is nothing wrong with islam itself...it is the islam fanaticals doing in that area of the world and it is due to sick mistranslations of a holy text that teaches the same beliefs as Judaism and Christianity. There is one god, be nice to people, and everything will work out. And actually out of the 3 systems, i prefer the idea of the islamic god because he is forgiving and once you have atoned for your sins you are forgiven, rather than just automatic forgiveness or raining fury

About the separation: YES IT IS separate. They are different military operations. While they may have SOME link, they are not one and the same like most people seem to make them out to be...Now what i said about not agreeing with how went about getting Saddam out of power: We heard a DIFFERENT story each week about why we went over there: it started as Saddam HAVING WMD's, when we found that faulty Saddam could've had the ability to make WMDS (which i'm not going to doubt and we did find some proof), and when people started disagreeing...THEN and ONLY THEN did it become "well saddam needed to be out anyway" IF Bush had started out saying: "we are the world super power, therefore have a responsiblity to end this evil" i would've said "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" and not worried about who we pissed off. Also about the sanctions etc.: we're doing it now with N Korea, so why did we not do it with Iraq? that is what i am truly asking. Why is there no such thing as consistency? I know we have limited power, but the fucker over there literally said "when i get a bomb, america's gone" we have yet to find bombs confirmed to be Saddam's....

not a partisan shot: I dont like the electoral college system where some states are all or nothing and some give pieces etc. If there are (hypothetical) 100 electoral votes, 50% vote republican, 49% vote democrat, 1 % vote independent, it should be broken down that way. It'd be the best melding of the two systems because i will admit the popular vote theory is flawed in itself...hell if Ahnuhld could run for prez, i'd fully expect him to win because so many idiots would come out of the woodwork just to vote for the terminator....

World Powers i guess you are right are US and China...and JUST maybe Britain. I tend to forget that world powers dont truly exist since the fall of the USSR and the like...My mistake on this one...Let me rephrase this as Nuclear capable countries since that is the take i had on it...how many in the list helping us actually have nukes? Yes we have 3000 more than everybody else...but that is my point. I am not meaning to disparage the help we are getting, i just think no one but us really strikes fear into anyone "bad guys" from the list. Once again no offense taken, just my view of the world which i very well admit could be young and naive and wrong.

Benji, they need to fix the misnomer. There's nothing wrong with changing a name, it doesnt change the operation. Worrld war IV? when was III? Communism-great idea bad execution....anyway...i think thats it. I'm enjoying the discussion guys and i apologize if anything seems personal or what not, not meant to be. I try to be openminded but i once again have my beliefs and yall have yours...i'm enjoying the information exchanging