Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by FriendlyFire, Apr 15, 2013.
I guess 5000 dead and 50,000 wounded per year is an improvement.
Mission accomplished !
Well, what do you want to see done? The US isn't coming back.
Bush needs to be in the media a lot more, In fact he should be given a lot a Air time.
I've missed you, Republicans especially have been missing you, come back and help the Republican party.
Would Saddam have imprisoned and executed as many people if he stayed in power today? What about economic and social metrics?
Even considering that Iraq was under sanctions for 11 years, they aren't that great.
I have effectively flip-flopped on Iraq, when I started moving towards a more constitutional/ libertarian ideology. I'm going to disregard my own ideology here for a second and pretend I still approve of the initial operation:
If the US and others did not let Iraq defend itself at some point, they would have been there forever. Iraq was rapidly becoming a foreign aid version of a welfare queen. The US was seemingly doing everything. It needed to stop. Iraq needs to hold itself up, or it will never be a 'legit republic.' The US had plenty of problems, when it formed/ became a republic. The knees will get scraped. If Iraq is going to be successful, it has to be Iraq's doing.
I think the deficit hawks are still complaining about us cutting and running.
There is nothing deficit hawk about say McCain for instance. He is certainly a hawk, though... a chickenhawk!
Actually McCain would not be the best example. Bush would be a better one. McCain actually went overseas.
McCain would be the complete opposite of a Chickenhawk, seeing as he famously spent time as a POW.
lying the us into war helped Obama politically
Yeah, I edited that second sentence in. I forgot about his Vietnam story for a second.
Foriegn policy hawk would describe him better. Bush is more chickenhawk.
*yawn* just another Iraq bombing. Nobody cares about stories like this.
Pfft, nobody cares about this story! It's just a bunch of brown people bombed to death, again.
Right now there are more important people dying in a single bomb attack.
Let's give one bombing 24/7 coverage for two week, and the other a mention in the back of the newspaper.
Then let's decry the enemy, and demand more crackdown!
Hey mobboss!! I'll see you when I set up my sock puppet account! Gotta love ToR!
Why are you so racist?
He's being sarcastic and cynical like he normally is. He's commenting on how we're concerned more about the Boston bombing than these bombings.
Why don't you put your angst towards something useful? Write for a publication, join an organization you believe in, something.
Subscribing to follow developments, but my attention is distracted at the moment.
He was responsible for upwards of 100K civilian deaths a year, anyone claiming the mantle of saving the most human lives as their primary metric has to be a huge war supporter at this point or be a huge hypocrite. Bush saved at least hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe over a million at this point. If your position is more nuanced in its determination as to the worth of the endeavor the above should still give you pause.
As to the OP, this has been covered already:
At least Iraq is less violent than hell holes like Finland, South Korea and Brazil. Those places must be the arm pits of the Earth!
Why are we assume none of those victims are brown? In fact, why are we assuming all the victims in Iraq are?
Don't forget to add in how many Saddam was ultimately responsible for in the Iran/Iraq war and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait/First Gulf War.
Surely he deserves blame for that, but the 2003 war wasn't going to bring any of them back. I was talking about how many he was killing and would have continued killing just prior to and through the 2000s if he had remained.
Separate names with a comma.