Our Losses in Iraq...
- Thread starter gundog98k
- Start date
- Status
Yea, right.
After the 1993 ambush in Somalia, which killed 19 and injured 84; President Clinton just tucked tail and ran away.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Under Clinton, at least three opportunities to have Bin Laden handed over to the U.S. were rejected inexplicably.
Under Clinton, 290 Americans died and 6,323 were injured in terrorist attacks.
As a direct result of Clinton's actions approximately 3,000 people died on 9/11.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1993 ambush in Somalia, which killed 19 and injured 84; President Clinton just tucked tail and ran away.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Under Clinton, at least three opportunities to have Bin Laden handed over to the U.S. were rejected inexplicably.
Under Clinton, 290 Americans died and 6,323 were injured in terrorist attacks.
As a direct result of Clinton's actions approximately 3,000 people died on 9/11.
HappyGunner
New member
Iraq
I have been waiting for someone to explain just what we have gained in protecting the United States by invading Iraq. And stiring up a hornets nest of death for our servicemen and women also for many good Iraq citizens. It's my feelings that the only thing that has happened is thousands of our servicemen and women have been killed and thousands have been badly mained for life there. The olny real people who have gained anything IMHO are the friends of the Bush bunch that own and run the compainies re-building or trying to re-build Iraq. And the many friends of the Bush bunch owing and running compainies suppling the products to our military in Iraq. When the Bush bunch asks you for the extra 25 to 45% surtax to pay for this major mistake in Iraq like what happened back in the late 60s when we were asked to give the extra 10% to pay for the Nam. mistake. People then will not admit they ever voted for Bush.
I have been waiting for someone to explain just what we have gained in protecting the United States by invading Iraq. And stiring up a hornets nest of death for our servicemen and women also for many good Iraq citizens. It's my feelings that the only thing that has happened is thousands of our servicemen and women have been killed and thousands have been badly mained for life there. The olny real people who have gained anything IMHO are the friends of the Bush bunch that own and run the compainies re-building or trying to re-build Iraq. And the many friends of the Bush bunch owing and running compainies suppling the products to our military in Iraq. When the Bush bunch asks you for the extra 25 to 45% surtax to pay for this major mistake in Iraq like what happened back in the late 60s when we were asked to give the extra 10% to pay for the Nam. mistake. People then will not admit they ever voted for Bush.
Jamie Young
New member
We are at War because Clinton was a wanker.
rolling thunder
New member
It always amazes me how anyone can debate the merits (or lack there of) without taking the PNAC documents into consideration. Maybe this has already been covered, but so far every political debate forum I have been to in the last year seem to either not know of it or think it is irrelevant to the invasion of Iraq. When I have brought it up in other forums people are either shocked by it or rush to defend the how and why such a plan is such a good one.
I know with as many intelligent people I have seen in this forum, SOMEBODY must have mentioned it, but I have never seen it debated until I bring it up.
The PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) is a "blueprint of how, if we are to remain the world's only superpower and economic powerhouse throughout the 21st century. Thrusting democracy and capitalism into the middle east. I of course agree that I too wish for the USA to remain the top dog in the world, but not with bombs where clearly (just my opinion of course) none were needed. We took our focus of Bin Laden and suddenly Saddam became the big boogie man to the USA. Capturing Saddam while letting Bin Laden make videos nearly every 3 or 4 months.
I'm certain to be in the minority in a forum where most of the members are dyed in the wool conservatives. I certainly do not mind that. However, I have yet seen anyone give any tangible reasons why what we are doing in Iraq is not the PNAC unfolding before our very eyes. Many have said that they agree with it and believe we are justified to accomplish those goals with military force.
IMO, the plan may have worked much better (albeit at a somewhat slower pace) had we shown by example that peace and prosperity is in everyone's interest as opposed to showing to the world, by example, that might makes right and sending us spiraling into a bottomless deficit spending orgy.
I'm always amazed that though we never seem to be able to fund education where it is badly needed then somehow find trillions of dollars to invade a country for reasons that are flimsy at best.
I have a lot more respect for the people who know it is PNAC unfolding and agree with it than I do for those who think we were right to invade Iraq but know nothing about the PNAC documents.
Meanwhile, while Saddam was contained we decided that he suddenly neeeded to be captured while letting Bin Laden become a video star instead of getting him and holding him accountable for the attack on the U.S. Embassy and the USS Cole(sp?) and of course for 9/11.
Whether I am right or wrong about why I believe we invaded Iraq I believe we should have "stayed the course" in Afghanistan before embarking on what could well be a quagmire or make us even more enemies in the world than we already have.
I know with as many intelligent people I have seen in this forum, SOMEBODY must have mentioned it, but I have never seen it debated until I bring it up.
The PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) is a "blueprint of how, if we are to remain the world's only superpower and economic powerhouse throughout the 21st century. Thrusting democracy and capitalism into the middle east. I of course agree that I too wish for the USA to remain the top dog in the world, but not with bombs where clearly (just my opinion of course) none were needed. We took our focus of Bin Laden and suddenly Saddam became the big boogie man to the USA. Capturing Saddam while letting Bin Laden make videos nearly every 3 or 4 months.
I'm certain to be in the minority in a forum where most of the members are dyed in the wool conservatives. I certainly do not mind that. However, I have yet seen anyone give any tangible reasons why what we are doing in Iraq is not the PNAC unfolding before our very eyes. Many have said that they agree with it and believe we are justified to accomplish those goals with military force.
IMO, the plan may have worked much better (albeit at a somewhat slower pace) had we shown by example that peace and prosperity is in everyone's interest as opposed to showing to the world, by example, that might makes right and sending us spiraling into a bottomless deficit spending orgy.
I'm always amazed that though we never seem to be able to fund education where it is badly needed then somehow find trillions of dollars to invade a country for reasons that are flimsy at best.
I have a lot more respect for the people who know it is PNAC unfolding and agree with it than I do for those who think we were right to invade Iraq but know nothing about the PNAC documents.
Meanwhile, while Saddam was contained we decided that he suddenly neeeded to be captured while letting Bin Laden become a video star instead of getting him and holding him accountable for the attack on the U.S. Embassy and the USS Cole(sp?) and of course for 9/11.
Whether I am right or wrong about why I believe we invaded Iraq I believe we should have "stayed the course" in Afghanistan before embarking on what could well be a quagmire or make us even more enemies in the world than we already have.
HappyGunner
New member
Reply to k-dawg
Quote:
our boys are over there, killing terrorists there.. so that the terrorists are not here, killing us here.
Show me any Iraq who has attacked or ever tried to attack the United States? What Iraq terrorists? I think your talking about Afghanistan and Iran. Thats where the terrorists are. And thats where we should have stayed and finished them not in Iraq.
Quote:
our boys are over there, killing terrorists there.. so that the terrorists are not here, killing us here.
Show me any Iraq who has attacked or ever tried to attack the United States? What Iraq terrorists? I think your talking about Afghanistan and Iran. Thats where the terrorists are. And thats where we should have stayed and finished them not in Iraq.
Jamie Young
New member
If a foreign Government plots to assassinate a President I think that is an act of war.
Saddam did just that.
Saddam did just that.
I have to place myself in the President's position on this one. We have been attacked by terrorists. In the middle east, we have a sworn enemy in Saddam Hussein. He is extremely wealthy and is in the process of paying large sums of money to Palastinian families of suicide bombers against Israel. He has also violated the terms of his UN surrender agreement, which the Security council created 14 different resolutions requiring him to recomply or face consequences. Throughout the Clinton Administration we failed to enforce the resolutions (until Monica needed to be off the front page). We also have numberous party officials from both sides of the US government (Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Madaline Albright) making statements during the 2000 campain stating we need to go back into Iraq and finish the job. Furthermore, our invasion was approved by UN resolution 1440 even though the security council voted against it when the time came to enforce it. We are now finding out the two members (France and Germany) who voted against using military force in Iraq were actually getting kick backs from the "oil for food" program.
Bottom line is, George Bush is cleaning up messes created by the corruption of power of the previous administration and the UN.
I voted for Bush, and I am damn proud of it.
Bottom line is, George Bush is cleaning up messes created by the corruption of power of the previous administration and the UN.
I voted for Bush, and I am damn proud of it.
HappyGunner
New member
Good luck
Keep your head down.
Keep your head down.
Well, a lively discussion, cool!
HappyGunner, nice to meet you. Legalhack, been there twice myself already. Gets tiresome being shot at when you know you shouldn't be there in the first place,doesn't it? We (the US) are not responsible for the worlds political problems. We had a valid, legit reason to invade Afghanistan. But true to form (for a Bush) we didn't finish the job. We still haven't. King George the first should have finished Saddam. I quit working for the Navy the first time over that. If you don't have the balls to finish, don't start. And now Bin Laden, who is a threat, is still roamin' free.
Nobody sees the real issue. Terrorism isn't the issue here; Religion is. Every video he ever makes, Bin Laden refers to Bush as "the Crusader Bush". That is not a political statement. That is 700 years of memory of the last time christians invaded the middle east. The issue is religion. And no one is willing to change their religion. Are they? The "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs" a game we can't win. But George is a fundamentalist christian, and he thinks islam is a sin. So our boys and girls go off and die in a country that doesn't want or need our help, all in the name of god. Here I thought religion was supposed to teach respect and peace towards your fellow men. Don't blame me, I voted for Baidnarek.
But let me tell you... this one is going to cost the rest of us dearly! And by the way, Clintons actions had no impact on 9/11... there was nothing, absolutely nothing he or anyone could have done to stop it. Unless the passengers on the planes had rushed the hijackers, before they got to the controls. I can tell you; for my part, knives and box cutters wouldn't have stopped me, I know what happens if they get control of the aircraft; nothing good, and if I'm on the plane, I'd rather die trying to fight than just die.
HappyGunner, nice to meet you. Legalhack, been there twice myself already. Gets tiresome being shot at when you know you shouldn't be there in the first place,doesn't it? We (the US) are not responsible for the worlds political problems. We had a valid, legit reason to invade Afghanistan. But true to form (for a Bush) we didn't finish the job. We still haven't. King George the first should have finished Saddam. I quit working for the Navy the first time over that. If you don't have the balls to finish, don't start. And now Bin Laden, who is a threat, is still roamin' free.
Nobody sees the real issue. Terrorism isn't the issue here; Religion is. Every video he ever makes, Bin Laden refers to Bush as "the Crusader Bush". That is not a political statement. That is 700 years of memory of the last time christians invaded the middle east. The issue is religion. And no one is willing to change their religion. Are they? The "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs" a game we can't win. But George is a fundamentalist christian, and he thinks islam is a sin. So our boys and girls go off and die in a country that doesn't want or need our help, all in the name of god. Here I thought religion was supposed to teach respect and peace towards your fellow men. Don't blame me, I voted for Baidnarek.
But let me tell you... this one is going to cost the rest of us dearly! And by the way, Clintons actions had no impact on 9/11... there was nothing, absolutely nothing he or anyone could have done to stop it. Unless the passengers on the planes had rushed the hijackers, before they got to the controls. I can tell you; for my part, knives and box cutters wouldn't have stopped me, I know what happens if they get control of the aircraft; nothing good, and if I'm on the plane, I'd rather die trying to fight than just die.
HappyGunner
New member
Just watched Sixty Minutes.
They had a few our wounded servicemen that confirmed that our Goverment under the Bush watch were not taking care of them after they had returned to the United States. Seems they find themselves on their own with no help being offered.
Is this what the the ones returning many mained for life should look forward to?
They had a few our wounded servicemen that confirmed that our Goverment under the Bush watch were not taking care of them after they had returned to the United States. Seems they find themselves on their own with no help being offered.
Is this what the the ones returning many mained for life should look forward to? HappyGunner
New member
Were they telling a lie?
So your hinting that the servicemen on the program were telling lies? Is that the best you can come up with?
So your hinting that the servicemen on the program were telling lies? Is that the best you can come up with?
"No one died when Clinton lied."
1) I never said no one died during Clintons term in office. What I said was no one died as a result of his lies. W lied to the whole of America too. About Saddam being a threat to our security. Anyone with their eyes open could see that Saddam of all people was not a threat to us. He was far too busy repressing the people who were a threat to him, the Iraqi people. Watch "Three Kings" with Geo. Clooney, you'll get some idea.
2) I just wanted to point out that even though I said we are not reponsible for the worlds problems, I do feel that we as a nation are incredibly arrogant and conceited to think that we would be immune to those problems. Terrorism here was only a matter of time. Our success and quality of life naturally breeds resentment in those who don't have it so good. If you would stand in their shoes, you would probably resent us too. Especially if you were from say, Palestine? Some refugee camp in Lebanon, maybe? And if you saw this affluent, successful nation backing the people who you saw as oppressing you and yours...; I think you would probably try to attack them if you got the chance, eh?!
3) We as a nation need to realize how LUCKY we got on 9/11! 2 or 3 hours later and we would have lost maybe 100,000 people in the towers and who knows what with the 4th plane.
1) I never said no one died during Clintons term in office. What I said was no one died as a result of his lies. W lied to the whole of America too. About Saddam being a threat to our security. Anyone with their eyes open could see that Saddam of all people was not a threat to us. He was far too busy repressing the people who were a threat to him, the Iraqi people. Watch "Three Kings" with Geo. Clooney, you'll get some idea.
2) I just wanted to point out that even though I said we are not reponsible for the worlds problems, I do feel that we as a nation are incredibly arrogant and conceited to think that we would be immune to those problems. Terrorism here was only a matter of time. Our success and quality of life naturally breeds resentment in those who don't have it so good. If you would stand in their shoes, you would probably resent us too. Especially if you were from say, Palestine? Some refugee camp in Lebanon, maybe? And if you saw this affluent, successful nation backing the people who you saw as oppressing you and yours...; I think you would probably try to attack them if you got the chance, eh?!
3) We as a nation need to realize how LUCKY we got on 9/11! 2 or 3 hours later and we would have lost maybe 100,000 people in the towers and who knows what with the 4th plane.
- Status