World War Two bombing raids were meant to take away the ability of the enemy to make war.

We don’t have to do that anymore, which is a good thing.

However they were the right strategy at the time.

So you are seriously stupid enough to think we didn’t kill anybody during the invasion?
Ok. Go on with your bad self.

Over 90% of all war related deaths have occured from suicide bombings. Unless your retarded ass in going to argue that our soldiers were doing that, it’s pretty self explainatory.

And now he denies that we pulled the terrorists in from other countries to fight them in Iraq, where they were not present before. So much for the fly paper theory.
How deluded do you have to be?

Al Quida was there before. As was Zarquawi. Others came in…but that doesn’t mean anything. Getting rid of a bad man encourages others to come in. That doesn’t mean it was wrong to depose the bad man.

Because history shows is was the Americans who chose the battleground, drawing the flies in.
Any other conclusion is dishonest and a complete fabrication of lies.

No, history says that we invaded Iraq because of reasons that predated 9/11, and had very little to do with the GWOT. It’s liberal liars who repeatedly bring up the “fact” that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 to “prove” that the war was bankrupt. But how dare we bring up truth in your deluded little world of lies.

I meant the ones who actually attacked us. You are right. Most the people we fought in Iraq were insurgents. They weren’t terrorist at all until we went into their country. I suspect many on this blog would do the same thing if another nation invaded our country for our own good.

They weren’t “terrorists” before the invasion, because most of them were IN POWER. With the state’s backing, they did whatever they wanted to their fellow countrymen.

If someone invaded our country, it wouldn’t be to “save” us, but to enslave us. What kinda trash are you to try and justify the deliberate murder of innocents, and then to claim “we’d do the same thing”. You’re garbage to equate two unlike situations.

Hannitized:

That’s not it at all. It’s just we don’t bullshit ourselves (read: delude) in order to spin why what happened, happened.

You are tone-deaf to history. You couldn’t even buy a clue that would explain to you why what happened…. happened.

Kenny:

They weren’t “terrorists” before the invasion, because most of them were IN POWER. With the state’s backing, they did whatever they wanted to their fellow countrymen.

Kenny, from my perspective they were still terrorists. Saddam and his minions engaged in many acts of state-sponsored terrorism, many of these against their own population.

This is in fact one of the reasons we invaded: A person who would kill his own population with such impunity, is a very dangerous and sick person indeed.

Hannitized:

So you are seriously stupid enough to think we didn’t kill anybody during the invasion?

The only one seriously stupid here is you. Take a course on reading comprehension, then get back to me.

If you manage to pass it.

Over 100,000 died as a result of the invasion.

Repeating lies make you a liar.

I must give you people credit. It took considerably longer to fabricate a justification for cooking 400,000+ Japanese women and children.

In the Invasion of Okinawa 1/3 of the civilian population was killed.

The bombing of Japan saved Japanese lives.

What do they mean by ……insurgents?

LOL.

Hannitized is asking what word means now, while obviously having no clue.

Seriously, this cat is better at logic debate:

And it looks like a muppet, so double prizes there.

To amplify on that, yes innocents were killed in the crossfire by us.

Yes we cared, and yes we tried to prevent that when possible.

And no the insurgents didn’t care, they often took up positions in schools, hospitals, mosques because they wanted collateral damage.

Go ahead though.

Blame the US military for the acts of these vile, despicable people.

Because that’s what “patriotism” looks like to the left.

Dino:

Then you whine, “WHY DO THEY HATE US?” when the favor is returned. While bush was in office, I might add.

I never whined “why do they hate us”, because I know the answer.

It’s because our society functions and their’s doesn’t.

Pretty simple really, and there is no immediate solution to that, unless they give up their 19th century set of social values.

Whose fault is it that those Japanese citizens died? America’s, for fighting back against an aggressive enemy that attacked us first? Or Japan’s, for starting a war?

I don’t think that is the question, Angry Rob. The question is is that the ethical practice of war fighting?

It is never the goal to drop bombs that cause that much innocent civilian death.

And while we’re at it, let’s explore who was taking most of those lives since Operation Freedom. It wasn’t US soldiers who were pulling the trigger and killing innocent civilians.

It was the same Ba’athist thugs responsible for the rape of Iraq before the invasion.

And of the rest? Many were young men of military age…. that’s not a coincidence.

I guess Hanjob doesn’t understand how Ba’athist thugs can be terrorists.

We knew he was too mentally deficient to be able to handle a towel safely, but if he thinks that makes his point he’s even dumber than we thought.

And while we’re at it, let’s explore who was taking most of those lives since Operation Freedom. It wasn’t US soldiers who were pulling the trigger and killing innocent civilians.

So you are seriously stupid enough to think we didn’t kill anybody during the invasion?

Ok. Go on with your bad self.

It was the same Ba’athist thugs responsible for the rape of Iraq before the invasion.

And now he denies that we pulled the terrorists in from other countries to fight them in Iraq, where they were not present before. So much for the fly paper theory.

How deluded do you have to be?

It was Vietnam’s fault that they chased out the French, only to have the US invade? Iraq attacked Iran remember? You really are a revisionist…

The French were asked in by the South. The French then asked in the US. Once the US tok over, the French left. Hardly “chased out”.

Claiming that “Iraq started the hostilities” is also a lie as BOTH countries were the aggressors, both fostering insurgencies in the other country before any invasion. Moreover, even after Saddam was repelled, and publically admitted defeat, Iran attacked constantly for six more years. It’s hard to make Saddam look like the good guy, but the Shah’s did.

I should have said roadside and car bombs that target civilian and military targets.

Zig:

They didn’t care when the Vietnamese, Laotians or Cambodians were dying after 1973.

Actually it’s worse than that. They were responsible for several million deaths by forcing the precipitous withdrawal of US forces from the region.

Had John Kerry been elected, I have no doubt history would have repeated itself.

Under Saddam who was in turn under the Clinton-era embargo, the number was 9,259 lives/month.

cry as you might… all you liberals seem to keep missing this number. any thoughts?

nobody ever wants to talk about the fact saddam might have killed between 250k and 1M of his own people…. based on what we found in his jails (where torture actually took place) low range is probably not accurate.

I wonder how many more Americans would have died in a land invasion of imperialist Japan?

Nonsensical arguement. Immaterial. Poor rationalization.

Mass murder of women and children is never right. Using your logic, all conflicts should be ended quickly with nukes. Or we should just commit genocide against someone when we “think” we might face a loss such as your fear of being conquered by a bunch of Japanese women and children.

Whose fault is it that those Japanese citizens died? America’s, for fighting back against an aggressive enemy that attacked us first? Or Japan’s, for starting a war?

Again, immaterial. We have rules of engagement just fighting military on military and now you’re going to excuse mass murder of civilians? Very sick. Fault never plays into the humanitarian rules of civilized people even when at war.

America deserved 1000 9/11s for what they did to Japan.

Carrick out of one side of his mouth:

And while we’re at it, let’s explore who was taking most of those lives since Operation Freedom. …

It was the same Ba’athist thugs

Then, minutes later:

Poor little terrorists getting so unjustly maligned.

That road side bomb is designed to cause mayhem, and is intended to maximize civilian casualties.

Carrick is just to dishonest to admit that we drew the terrorists in, who ended up killing most of the civilians, yet the US is not responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians, because our politicians in the Bush administration never created the fly paper theory argument.

Makes sense, don’t it?

Does anyone think Carrick would be upset if I decided I wanted to have a gun fight in his house and then later claimed it wasn’t my fault if his family got shot up or his house got shot up as a result of my choice to fight in his house?

Anyone?

And not one of the leftists care that less Iraqis are actually dying. The fact that lives have been saved is irrelevant. America still sucks, Bush is still evil, yadda yadda yadda.

That’s not it at all. It’s just we don’t bullshit ourselves (read: delude) in order to spin why what happened, happened.

It was Vietnam’s fault that they chased out the French, only to have the US invade? Iraq attacked Iran remember? You really are a revisionist…

Most of the killing was Iraq-on -Iraq, not foreign terrorists on Iraq.

Hmmm……my how the story changes as time goes by.

I seem to remember the word insurgent being used all the time and how you guys used to get mad about it, as it diminished the good fight you used to argue we were fighting, you know, the terrorists.

Mind you, neither the use of the word terrorist or insurgent supports your statement.

Yes, many people were killed by Iraqis fighting each other, but pretending they were not killed by terrorists and insurgents is just patently dishonest.

I’m not surprised you don’t know that, because all you do is spout shit, and the only thing you are an authority on is shit.

Gee, I certainly remember how you used to tell us it wasn’t a civil war, now, here you are telling us it was s civil war.

What a joke.

Angry invertebrate:

You really are a revisionist…

Let me guess, you were looking at a mirror when you uttered this.

Where we’ve slaughtered them like gophers.

Sandy: I want you to kill every gophers on the golf course!
Carl Spackler: Correct me if I’m wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers, they’re gonna lock me up and throw away the key…
Sandy: Not golfers, you great fool! Gophers! The *little* *brown*, *furry* *rodents* -!
Carl Spackler: We can do that; we don’t even have to have a reason. All right, let’s do the same thing, but with gophers -!

Funny thing? Iran (previously Persia) has not attacked anyone for 2000 years.

Iran held 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981.

Iran has long been a sponsor of terrorism world wide since the Ayatollah was allowed back into Iran from France when Carter refused to help the Shah. Iran has supplied training, funding and sophisticated IED’d to insurgents in Iraq that have killed and injured many US Soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Iran is a repressive regime lead by a holocaust denier nutcase.

If Iran gets a nuke they will use it. It is a country run by fanatic mullahs and a crazy sawed off runt.

I can’t think of a better place to preemptively destroy in terms of any military or terrorism exporting capability.

America deserved 1000 9/11s for what they did to Japan.

Go fuck yourself, you ugly piece of shit.

AngstfulnonVertibrate is, as usual, mistaken when he says:

I remember that Rodney Graves advocated doing the same thing to Iran.

[blockquote][Presumably a reference to this]
I wonder how many innocent lives would be saved if the US was wiped off the map, given our proclivity for war.[/blockquote]

Funny thing? Iran (previously Persia) has not attacked anyone for 2000 years.

Whereas my actual proposal (linked from my signature block) was to stike Iran’s offensive and aerial defense capabilities as a prelude to destroying their nuclear capabilities, and then destroying their POL import/export facilities so they had no source of cash to rebuild those programs.

That’s a long chalk from what the AngstfulnonVertibrate is alleging.

Then again, the AngstfulnonVertibrate has never demonstrated anything resembling factual accuracy.

Because history shows is was the Americans who chose the battleground, drawing the flies in

Incorrect, again.

Removing the BDS-glasses will reveal that Saddam, himself, chose the battleground by violating the ceasefire only a mere 15 days after signing it. WMD’s aside (no matter what side of that debate you are on), the U.S. had every justification to go back in. Period. Paragraph. We screwed up by trying to get approval through the spineless U[seless] N[itwits]

If a gang of crooks invaded my neighborhood and was executing a goodly number of people I wouldn’t blame the SWAT team for their rescue job.

Is that how you see the Iraq war?

So, who was the crooks? The Americans or the insurgents?

Because history shows is was the Americans who chose the battleground, drawing the flies in.

Any other conclusion is dishonest and a complete fabrication of lies.

You are a sick and mentally deranged person. — WillHuntForFood

I remember that Rodney Graves advocated doing the same thing to Iran. Funny thing? Iran (previously Persia) has not attacked anyone for 2000 years. I cannot remember any righties condemning da wiz for that.

I think ollie-B was being controversial, not self-loathing.

We don’t attack countries unless they deserve it. — WillHuntForFood

What did Indochina do to deserve the masscare we gave ‘em? Four million dead.

What did the people of Nicaragua do to deserve the CIA-backed Contra terrorism? Two hundred thousand murdered, some of the most barbaric crimes against humanity committed, including nuns raped and murdered. And Reagan, the great humanist, and Dear Leader to many conservatives, said of the Contras, “The moral equal of our founding fathers”. (Go look it up, I kid you not.)

The cons on this thread are a bunch of ignorant revisionists. I have never seen such stupidity centralized and dismissive of facts.

Note how Kenny just skips right be any argument that proves him a fool? Notice how he glossed right over that comment by Reagan and the Contras?

Note how Carrick has the history of the Iraq war completely upside down?

I can only imagine how this war will be presented to their children in 10 years.

Terrorists is defined based on tactics, not where the terrorist is from.

Therefore if you’re “military campaign” relies on roadside bomb, you’re a terrorist.

Vietnam was a French colony. The French were no more “asked in” than the Native Americans invited the Europeans, or the Australian Aborigines asked the British to come and slaughter them.

Indochina was French til WW2. At which point the Japanese took it over. The powers decided it was french, but France couldn’t hold it, so it slipped into communist control.

Following a crippling defeat for the pathetic forces of France, the north claimed more land. People fled in record numbers before being stopped by the North.

And the rest, as we have discussed, was a national election in which the South rejected the North,

Screw those Southerners though. F-ing non-communists.

And ollie-B pointed out a country even more violent and dangerous than Iran. A better candidate for destruction. Yet you called him sick.

hawk,

I doubt Thomas Jefferson would have much use for you, other than as water and manure for the Tree of Liberty.

Carrick.

Bob Woodward missed a vital element of the chain of events: The Dueling Memoranda

Interesting, is it not? Here the State Department predicts that a long transition would produce the appearance of American Imperialism and would likely result in “instability and possible terrorist acts against U.S. forces.” and then proceeds to recommend exactly that approach.

Which is bad enough…

But this being the Department of State, we can count on it getting worse.

In short, the State Department’s position against turning power over to Iraqis, and in favor of a heavy-handed occupation laden with adverse consequences of which State was well aware, seems misguided and arguably irrational. It is best explained, perhaps, by reference to the view of Chalabi held by certain Arab states whose preferences have been known to carry weight at Foggy Bottom. To these states, Chalabi was a menace, but not because he lacked “credibility” with Iraqi, and not because he lacked competence. To the contrary, the problem with the charismatic, dynamic Chalabi from their perspective was (a) his pro-Arab democracy stance and (b) his Shiite religion.

One can understand why this might alarm certain Sunni Arab dictators. Why it should have alarmed the State Department and/or why the Department failed to distinguish the interests of these dictators from our own (and from those of the Iraqis) is less clear.

Indeed. Why was State more concerned with the Arab view of Iraq than with selling our vision for Iraq to the Arab world?

As Feith recounts in his book, L. Paul Bremer ultimately implemented the State Department’s vision for post-invasion Iraq even though President Bush had signed off on Rumsfeld’s plan. Bremer would later write: “What would have happened if the U.S. government had turned over Iraq to the exiles in May, as some in Washington had wanted?” As Feith notes, Bremer “misses the point that the individuals he disparages. . .are the very same Iraqis to whom he eventually turned over the government.” The case can be made that all Bremer and Armitage achieved by delaying the turnover was the instability and terrorism Armitage himself had predicted would likely result from U.S. domination of the post-invasion government.

Indeed it can. Let’s have a long loud raspberry for the striped pants brigade, who demonstrably failed to understand that they were charged with advising the President and then carrying out the President’s Foreign Policy directives.

Thus the Surge was clearly a case of once bitten, twice shy on the part of the Bush Administration. The end results clearly validate surge, and invalidate the striped pants brigade.

That is just a cheap distraction for being honest with yourself and others.

Way too much blah, blah going on here. Assuming the numbers are correct, and I have no reason to not take that assumption, throughout the pursuit of the war civilian casualties per month were less than half of when Hussein was in power pre-sanctions, and roughly 1/6th of what they were during the sanction days. Unless you are trying out some new form of fuzzy math, that translates to fewer civilan deaths per month – period. Whether these deaths were caused by the bad guys or the good guys (which is which is irrelevant) is irrelevant also, THERE WERE FEWER OF THEM. What is not clear from the report is the duration of each period. That may make a difference, but (and I am just going from memory here), Hussein in power pre-sanctions was a period of about ten years, followed by a period of about the same duration under sanctions. The Iraq war has been going on now since 2003, a period of six years – do the math – still comes out to fewer civilian deaths. Simple math – simple logic – simple truth.

Hawk:

The real question is why is a roadside bomb worse than a bomb from 20,000 feet?

More “oh boo hoo” from Hawk.

Poor little terrorists getting so unjustly maligned.

Seriously, that bomb is laser guided to a precise target. If civilians die, it’s usually because of problem with the MI that lead to that target selection.

That road side bomb is designed to cause mayhem, and is intended to maximize civilian casualties.

Get better at your arguments, or I’ll post another picture of my cat.

rockdove has his own separate reality which does not intersect with observable facts and documented history.

Rockdove?

What did Indochina do to deserve the masscare we gave ‘em? Four million dead.

I’m assuming you’re talking the Vietnam/Cambodian/etc wars, which, as we have repeatedly gone over, were Indochina’s fault.

Therefore if you’re “military campaign” relies on roadside bomb, you’re a terrorist.

The real question is why is a roadside bomb worse than a bomb from 20,000 feet?

Terrorists did not invade Iraq to fight us after the first gulf war.

Terrorists came to fight us after the second. Why do you think that is?

Hannitized:

And now he denies that we pulled the terrorists in from other countries to fight them in Iraq, where they were not present before

Most of the killing was Iraq-on -Iraq, not foreign terrorists on Iraq.

I’m not surprised you don’t know that, because all you do is spout shit, and the only thing you are an authority on is shit.

Why do you think that is?

Because the GWOT (oops! The “Overseas Contingency Operation”) was in full swing, and the U.S. had already kicked the Taliban out of power. Doing so was viewed as a religious insult (the Infidel must pay!). Going to Iraq to fight “The Infidel” was viewed by hard line Islamist cleric as a chance to get a little vengeance against the eeeevil Western Infidels, so they de facto ordered their flocks to go to Iraq, or to support it in any way possible.

Anyone can be a terrorist

Bill Ayres

That’s not it at all. It’s just we don’t bullshit ourselves (read: delude) in order to spin why what happened, happened.

That’s exactly what it is. The drumbeat about Iraqi deaths is ALWAYS coupled with the demand to withdraw. If it ACTUALLY had anything to do with the well being of the Iraqis, the news that less Iraqis were dying under the war than before would give you pause.

Instead, there is no acknowledgement that this even occured. Your very first comment is instead:

So you are seriously stupid enough to think we didn’t kill anybody during the invasion?
Ok. Go on with your bad self.

“We killed people.” The VERY. FIRST. THING. YOU. SAY. is to remind us all how bad we are, how unjust the war is, and how evil we are for killing civilians. Your second comment is to blame us for the terrorists even being there.

Your only reactions to the knowledge that less people died is to claim we’re now responsible for all those who did.

In short, it has jack shit to do with Iraqis, just like it has jack shit to do with soldiers. All you care about is demonizing the US, demonizing Bush, and demonizing anyone who is pro-war. It’s political opportunism at it’s most disgusting.

It’s the same hypocritical win at all costs bullshit that caused Al Gore to brand Bush Sr. a traitor for leaving Saddam in power and support the removal of Saddam during the Clinton years (going so far as to parrot the…then…party line that Saddam had WMDs), only to turn around and talk about Bush lying us into war after Bush invaded (even though Bush just said the same things as Clinton and co.). The demand to withdraw the troops would’ve led to millions dead, but that doesn’t matter to you guys. It is all about giving those f-ing right wingers a black eye. If it leads to the deaths of a “few” of those unwanted brown people from other countries..well, whats a million deaths or so between friends.

You CANNOT claim that the war was evil and that lives were saved. Which is why you don’t acknowledge it. It’s the same reason no one is complaining about the war anymore. It’s no longer an issue to beat the Republicans with. It’s disappeared from the news, it’s off the campaign trail. No more nightly body counts. Because, well, those brown people served their purpose in regaining you power, and you no longer “care” about them.

It’s rare when an issue comes about where it’s visible that politics trumps people…but the Dem party on the Iraq war was as clear of a politics over people issue that you get.

Not a single one of you has ANY shame.

It took considerably longer to fabricate a justification for cooking 400,000+ Japanese women and children.

I wonder how many more Americans would have died in a land invasion of imperialist Japan?

Whose fault is it that those Japanese citizens died? America’s, for fighting back against an aggressive enemy that attacked us first? Or Japan’s, for starting a war?