Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by El_Guero, Aug 19, 2006.
The cost of war in lives lost.
Much grimmer statistics:
Considering that this next statistic was only for one single day, this would have been even more grim for the Lindbergh anti-war isolationists:
OK? Don't know what your point is . . .
This is 2006. We are at war. It is a grim war, although not as bad as WW2 . . .
I do not ever forget the sacrifice of those that went before . . . especially those in Europe.
But we should remember the sacrifice of those that are going on before us now every bit as much as those that went on 60 years ago.
First, Japan declared war and attacked us . . . or was it the other way around? A telegraph glitch.
Second, the people who complain about other people dying are usually the same people who complain about overpopulation.
Third, those who invoke the word "cost" should remember that a balance sheet has two sides. The war is making billions for Bush's friends. Be a Bush friend and buy oil stock.
I know that somewhere in the world that makes sence . . . I just have no idea where.
The Japanese bombed Pearl 60 years ago - I'm not sure if Bush was born yet, and I know he didn't have oil stocks then.
Get some sleep
take some aspirin in the morning . . .
I'll send you the bill . . .
This is in reference to Ken's and Joseph's WWII statistics on the cost of war. Billwald's point is that WWII was not a voluntary war for the US as the Japanese struck first (soon afterwards Germany declared war on the US) while Bush's invasion & occupation of Iraq was a calculated decision with war & oil profits figuring heavily in the calculation.
I do believe that you are one unruly, dazed, and confused patient . . .
but, maybe if you took a lot of aspirin, an apple, sleep it off, and called in the morning you might be less unruly . . .
Germany did not attack us at Pearl Harbour. Iraq did not attack us on 9-11 (for that matter, neither did Afganistan). This is the thing many liberals forget in their hatred of Bush. The Taliban and Al-Quaeda attacked us on 9-11. Now, if you are really naieve enough to believe that this terror group was contained in Afganistan, you really are deluded.
Perhaps the question should be the other way around. What would be the cost of not going to war in 1939?
An exceptional point. Not only did the British Empire first have to engage Hitler in '39 - this domino effect eventually brought in the USA which led to the defeat of the 'Axis Powers'.
I pray that the lives lost can be evaluated against the greater benefit of defeating the radical terrorists.
Thanks & cheers!
We can never balance the loss of lives with any war, but sadly, the loss of lives is the price of war.
If it is my son or daughter, one life is too many. On the other hand, what are we willing to pay for freedom. 1939-45 had to do with freedom. First for the Poles and Eastern Europe, then for the Jews, then for a very own soil. These things always escalate, and eventually strike home.
We are at war with more than a few hoodlums. We are at war with an ideology, namely Islamic fundamentalism. Let's not kid ourselves. I did not agree with invading a sovereign country because the tyrant of Iraq was keeping relative peace in the Middle East with his heavy hand of power. We have now dispersed the enemy and effectively armed him.
We are taking casualties because we insist on treating the enemy with human kindness. Had we done this in Korea, we, in Canada, would have suffered more than 500 casualties.
Are we in this war to win? If so, perhaps we had better start fighting that way.
Fourth, drunk drivers kill many more Americans than war has.
That statistic sounds good - could you give me a link to your source. I might use it sometime.
I disagree that invading Iraq has made the enemy more powerful. I agree that it is the timid politically correct way in which we have conducted this war under the treasonous microscope of the liberals in media that has emboldened the enemy.
Al Qaida is estimated by our own CIA to be three times the size it was before we attacked Iraq, and has expanded its base of operations. The Taliban is agitating in Afghanistan, our hand-picked president there is about to be toppled, along with the "democratically elected" government, and Iran, North Korea, Hezbollah and Hamas have all been agressively expanding their positions knowing that the US is tied down in Iraq.
All that "liberals in the media weakening us" rhetoric is just a bunch of baloney. The incompetence of this president and his cronies must be balanced somehow, or we'll wind up in a predominantly hispanic country with more debt than there is money in the world to pay it.
Now you want the poor hispanic population to pick up the bills that your representatives have run up . . .
Now if you do not plan on making the hispanic population pick up the bill of the liberals, then aren't both statements hyperbole?
Can you prove that Al qaeda would not have grown fivefold if we had not entered Iraq? Of course not.
If we had not entered Afghanistan, the Taliban would still be in complete control instead of just "agitating".
Are you saying Hamas and Hezbollah would not have continued their murdering ways if we had not entered Iraq? How naive.
Is Iran bolder since we entered Iraq? Perhaps. Can you say for certain that they would not have taken all the steps they have taken if we had not entered Iraq? Of course not.
Do you think it makes Iran just a tiny bit nervous having having American military forces right next door? Absolutely.
Are you really advocating that we do absolutely nothing about terrorism except close the border with Mexico? Sounds like it.
Stop whining and let's hear some solutions. You sound just like most liberals/democrats.
Complain and second guess, but never step forward with a solution.
I liked your answer better than mine, but I kinda got mad and was thinking things like remember the alamo and pack your carpet bag . . . not good things to be thinking when writing a response . . .
I might have gotten a little bit over the top . . . and hurt some feelings
Sometimes I am too PC