Quoting:
Last I heard, we had 304 casualties. I'm not sure whether that's U.S. casualties or U.S. and UK casualties together.
End Quote

If you look at the length of time, that is actually a lower death rate then Drunk Drivers, then gang shootings in LA, is probably even lower then the death rate to normal every day traffic accidents.

One thing to note:  Before Vietnam, disease and food poisoning killed more soldiers then combat.  Just look at the HUGE numbers of dead due to disease and food poisoning in the Spanish-American war, or WW I.  Those were both much higher then the number dead due to combat.  And that change had nothing to do with the war itself, but in the advances in medicine and food storage.  During the 1990 Gulf War, more service men died due to traffic accidents in Saudi Arabia then died in the entire 1990-1991 war itself.

You have to remember one thing here, we are dealing with fanatics here.  We are also dealing with former governments that did not care about it's own people, but with their own power.  Whenever I see "Oh wah, another suicide bomber killed another serviceman", I remember seeing the mass graves of the victems of this madman.  There are some that still follow him, but I am sure that if you asked the common Iraqi, they want nothing to do with him.  The fact that they keep trying to assasinate the new leaders shows how scared they are.

And yes, I *DO* care that Americans are killed.  I have friends that are over there even now.  But that is what the military does.  They are all volunteers.  They knew what they were getting into.  They joined the military, not the peace corps.  But more then anything else, they want to know that they are being accepted and doing a good job.

What I find funny is that when Bill Clinton claimed Iraq had WMD and launched a massive bombing campaign in 1998, you did not hear this kind of uproar.  I guess massive bombing is good if one president does it, but bad if one president does it and actually achieves something.

Quoting:
What I find funny is that when Bill Clinton claimed Iraq had WMD and launched a massive bombing campaign in 1998, you did not hear this kind of uproar.  I guess massive bombing is good if one president does it, but bad if one president does it and actually achieves something.
End Quote

Ah, but there were whining commie peaceniks who refused to support our troops in Clinton's war (which did not have a single American military casualty). Wanna guess who? That freaking pinko, Newt Gengrich! Pretty much everyone of his cabal of Clinton haters refused to support our troops (who suceeded in getting Slobo out of power and he was caught).

There was an uproar for Clinton's war against ethnic cleansing and it came from the hypocritic Republicans. (Special thanks to Al Frankken for the info.)

Quoting:
Ah, but there were whining commie peaceniks who refused to support our troops in Clinton's war (which did not have a single American military casualty).
End Quote

Ahhh, "Clinton's War".  You must mean that place where nobody was killed called Somallia.  Or do you mean the place that nobody was killed named Yugoslavia?  Or do you mean the place that nobody was killed named Waco?

Quoting:
Wanna guess who? That freaking pinko, Newt Gengrich! Pretty much everyone of his cabal of Clinton haters refused to support our troops (who suceeded in getting Slobo out of power and he was caught).
End Quote

I do not consider lobbing a few cruise missles at a target as a "war".  What Newt was complaining about was the timing of several of those missle attacks.  Funny, how they were right when he was in the deepest water in his own impeachment trials.

But you are now confusing 2 different "Clinton War's" yourself.  His bloodless war (on our side) was when he lobbed cruise missles at our foes.  WHen people had to go on the ground and follow stupid orders, they got slaughtered.  Does "Blackhawk Down" mean anything to you?

Quoting:
There was an uproar for Clinton's war against ethnic cleansing and it came from the hypocritic Republicans. (Special thanks to Al Frankken for the info.)
End Quote

Ahhh, so that explains it.  Anybody who takes "serious" political commentary from a fired Saturday Night Live writer is taking it from the wrong source.

Here is something to think about.  During the Kosovo and Somolia conflicts there were a lot of military people complaining about the policy.  They were not upset about having to go and fight, but in the WAY they were being sent in.

The US Military are NOT police officers.  You do not sit them in the middle of a war and tell them to get both sides to stop fighting without shooting at anybody.  When bodies started to come home from that mess which they knew was unwinable, his Secretary Of Defense resigned.  

THen to add on top of that, by a Presidential order, military members were forbidden to speak out against that war.  Strange how when everybody talks about "disenfranchisement", nobody talks about how in recent history, a US President took away the first ammendment rights of ALL US Servicemen and women.

Of course we all know what happened in Somolia.  We ran away with our tail between our legs.  We were beat by Osama.  Clinton swore he would take revenge, and he later lobbed some cruise missles at Afganistan which had no result.

Of course when he was later offered by Yemen to be given Osama he turned them down, because he was on his way out of office, and thought Osama was no longer a threat.

Of course, "Ethnic Clensing" is a bad thing.  It is something we are trying to stop in Iraq.  Just ask the Kurds about that.

Quoting:
I have a question for you Mr. 80s. Why is whenever anyone brings up Bush and present situation in Iraq, you bring up Clinton? Yes, Clinton made some mistakes, and did some things that we may or may not agree with but Clinton has not been in office in 3 years. We are now dealing with the Bush administration and the decisions that Bush makes. It is the present sitution that we are discussing. If you want to start a Clinton thread, by all means do so. But, the topic of this thread is Iraq. Not Clinton in Bosnia.



Cat
End Quote

Let me try to advance a possible reason, Cat.  Die hard republicans, unable to wake up from their delusions and smell the coffee (or in your case the tea) want to distract all of us from the issues we all face today by placing all blame on Bubba.  Your'e right, the guy wasn't perfect - no president is, but the point is to distract attention from the fool we have have to the fool we use to have.  And as to Somalia, it was, at least, a UN operation, not an arbitrary and preemptive "bushism".  Some people just can't face facts.  Certainly so far, the bush's strategy has been no more successful that that of his predesesor, and infinately more expensive.

Might I suggest that people interested in this and other political topics read Fortunate Son and Why do People Hate America?  The first on the life of the (current) bush, and the second on the US and the rest of the world.  Good reads both.

But back to Iraq...

No WMDs, no Saddam (will he return?), more US dead, more turmoil, more chaos, AND STILL NO OIL.  What's with that Haliburton?

Quoting:
I have a question for you Mr. 80s. Why is whenever anyone brings up Bush and present situation in Iraq, you bring up Clinton?
End Quote

The main reason why is to show two things.  For one, how partisan most people think when it comes to politics.  The other is to show people how shortsited they can be when thinking of current topics.

I am actually very moderate when it comes to my politics.  That lets me see partisanship on both sides equally.  But over the years, I have seen that one side is much more likely to be "blind" then the other.  One side tends to go more off of "feelings" then reality.

Also most people tend to forget things that happened only a few years ago.  They remember only the things that prove (or they think prove) their point, and forget everything else.

To me, this is what debate is all about.  But also approaching a topic open minded, and not let personal beliefs interfere with the facts of the matter.

And if you notice, I brought up Clinton in response to something that John Harveyt said.  I was responding to a claim he made about Clinton leading a "bloodless war".

Mostly in topics such as this, I tend to reply in response when I feel people are giving a half-truth.  Because people tend to forget things like the censorship of the military, I feel the need to point that out.

I am not a hardline Republican.  But when I see one side argued without any reasonable attempt to look at both sides, I feel the need to speak out the other way.

BTW, I helped produse a TV talk show several years ago, where the host would spend 1-2 hours before the show deciding which view he would argue.  In working with him, I helped learn how to argue both sides of a topic fairly and with equal facts.  Want to hear the reasons to support/oppose abortion?  

Quoting:
Let me try to advance a possible reason, Cat.  Die hard republicans, unable to wake up from their delusions and smell the coffee (or in your case the tea) want to distract all of us from the issues we all face today by placing all blame on Bubba.  
End Quote

Interesting evaluation.  In case you did not notice, I tend to mention several specific actions in most of my political posts.  Quite often, I even include sites that you can check out yourself to evaluate their authenticity/relevancy.

This may be a holdout from my being in the military for 10 years.  It may also be a sign of my spending most of my life with computers.  But I tend to approach a great many things without emotion at all.  I let the facts decide, not how I "feel" about something.

FOr one, I am not a "die hard Republican".  I have voted for Democrats in the past, and will again in the future if I feel they are the best ones for the job.  I support the "right to choose", although I wish they would choose other things like adoption.  Having been the recipiant of the fanatical "right to life crowd" myself, I can see how that is NOT a good thing.

In a great many posts I do not "blame" Clinton for anything.  I often just use him to show how partasin some people are.  Things one person did are good, things another person did are bad, even when they are the same thing.  I do not think that way, and am puzzled at people that do.

Quoting:
Your'e right, the guy wasn't perfect - no president is, but the point is to distract attention from the fool we have have to the fool we use to have.  And as to Somalia, it was, at least, a UN operation, not an arbitrary and preemptive "bushism".  Some people just can't face facts.  Certainly so far, the bush's strategy has been no more successful that that of his predesesor, and infinately more expensive.
End Quote

The UN is another thing I can go on about, but this is not the time or place.  And as for "preemptive", don't forget that Bush had UN Approval (which they then tried to change), and was enforcing MULTIPLE UN resolutions.  

Quoting:
Might I suggest that people interested in this and other political topics read Fortunate Son and Why do People Hate America?  The first on the life of the (current) bush, and the second on the US and the rest of the world.  Good reads both.
End Quote

Well, I have heard of "FOrtunate Son", but have not gotten around to reading that book yet.  I may get to it after I finish CLinton's book.  Then again, maybe not.

As far as the second, I really have no intention of reading it.  No matter what, people will find some reason to hate others.  I am sure if you asked Hitler, he had a good reason (to him) to hate "inferior people".

Quoting:
But back to Iraq...

No WMDs, no Saddam (will he return?), more US dead, more turmoil, more chaos, AND STILL NO OIL.  What's with that Haliburton?
End Quote

As for the first, are you forgetting what Hans Glick himself said?  He said that Iraq was trying to deceive the inspectors, and had been caught in possession of items that they were forbidden to possess under UN resolution.  Also they had been found in possession of delivery systems for chemical weapons, also forbidden to them.

Of the fact they HAD chemical weapons, there is no doubt of that.  Check with Iran or the Kurds.  The question was mostly of "what have they done with them, and the things they used to make them".  ANd while the weapons themselves have not been found, a lot of items used to make and deliver them have been found, and those are also illegal.

As for Saddam, catching him is not as important overall as removing him from power.  Eventually he will be caught, but he is no longer in control of a large military, nor is he threatening his neighbors anymore.

In case you missed it, last week we pulled ALL of our military from Saudi Arabia.  Since Saddam is out of power, there is no longer any reason to keep them there.

As for Haliburton, so what?  They are not an oil company, nor are they a defense contractor.  They supply oil machinery.  They do not drill for oil, nor do they own oil wells.  YOu might as well blame Alcoa because they might have made some of the Aluminum that Iraq has used/will use in the future.

Quoting:

FOr one, I am not a "die hard Republican".  I have voted for Democrats in the past, and will again in the future if I feel they are the best ones for the job.  I support the "right to choose", although I wish they would choose other things like adoption.  Having been the recipiant of the fanatical "right to life crowd" myself, I can see how that is NOT a good thing.
End Quote

Well said, good sir :)

Quoting:


And as for "preemptive", don't forget that Bush had UN Approval (which they then tried to change), and was enforcing MULTIPLE UN resolutions.  

End Quote

This is not correct. The UN resolutions called for Iraq to be disarmed by force, true, but there had to be some proof weapons were there first before the force was to be authorised. The UN resolutions did not necessarily specify a military invasion, either. Force was never authorised by the UN against Iraq. The US took that initiative on themselves, then claimed they were enforcing the resolutions. This point has been made very clear in earlier posts on this topic: The UN never told America to invade Iraq. America decided to do that by herself. Bush DID NOT have UN approval on Iraq.

Quoting:


The main reason why is to show two things.  For one, how partisan most people think when it comes to politics.  The other is to show people how shortsited they can be when thinking of current topics.

I am actually very moderate when it comes to my politics.  That lets me see partisanship on both sides equally.  But over the years, I have seen that one side is much more likely to be "blind" then the other.  One side tends to go more off of "feelings" then reality.

Also most people tend to forget things that happened only a few years ago.  They remember only the things that prove (or they think prove) their point, and forget everything else.

To me, this is what debate is all about.  But also approaching a topic open minded, and not let personal beliefs interfere with the facts of the matter.

And if you notice, I brought up Clinton in response to something that John Harveyt said.  I was responding to a claim he made about Clinton leading a "bloodless war".

Mostly in topics such as this, I tend to reply in response when I feel people are giving a half-truth.  Because people tend to forget things like the censorship of the military, I feel the need to point that out.

I am not a hardline Republican.  But when I see one side argued without any reasonable attempt to look at both sides, I feel the need to speak out the other way.

BTW, I helped produse a TV talk show several years ago, where the host would spend 1-2 hours before the show deciding which view he would argue.  In working with him, I helped learn how to argue both sides of a topic fairly and with equal facts.  Want to hear the reasons to support/oppose abortion?  
End Quote

Your response was very well put. I do think that I owe you an apology for singling you out. There are many people here who respond to questions about Bush with an answer about Clinton. You are right about people only using certain facts to support their position and the fact that many people do not see the whole truth. Sometimes I do get a bit passionate in my arguments and I get frustraited when I see what is going on very plainly and others can't. I try to make people see what I see-whether they agree with my conclusions or not, is a different story.


(Sorry to get off topic a bit.)


Cat

Quoting:


Your response was very well put. I do think that I owe you an apology for singling you out. There are many people here who respond to questions about Bush with an answer about Clinton.
End Quote

It's quite all right.  :)  I took no offense in it at all.

I try to keep my debates on topic as much as possible.  I rarely bring up something else unless it directly supports the view I am taking at the time.  But if I am responding to the claims of another, I feel they have opened up a part of that topic if it applies and they did not include things.

I am a rather dispassionate writer when it comed to responding to posts in here.  I know they may be dry, but that is comonly the image I am trying to make.  In a debate, there is no place for emotions, feelings, or passions in my mind.  The facts should speak for themselves.  If you read any of my posts on music swapping, this would have shown.

However, I am more likely to get more involved if it is something I enjoy.  Music, movies, my family, how much I hate California and Californians.  *GRIN*