39 US Soldiers Dead in just over a Week

[Ramo]

what about it exactly is a joke? The current govt was only formed a couple of months ago, and has a very difficult situation to deal with.

For starters,

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/international/middleeast/03ministry.html?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


According to Scott Ritter,

RITTER: [...] The problem with disarming Iraq right now is that Iraq has failed across the board. There are major questions in chemical. Iraq has a VX program. VX is one of the most deadly substances on the face of the Earth. And we've uncovered this. They refuse to even address the issue.

We have major problems with stocks of chemical weapons and chemical agents that are unaccounted for. The entire biological program, which (unintelligible) horrible weapons, is a black hole, as Richard Butler says. Ballistic missiles -- there's absolute concern that they still retain the capability to deliver chemical and biological weapons through ballistic missiles that they haven't declared.

Iraq still poses a real and meaningful threat to its neighbors, and nothing the Security Council or the United States is doing currently will change this fact.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DanS
Patrokolos: I think AH is content to bash the decisions that others are making and will be very difficult to pin down on an opinion about what should be done positively.

What? you mean I have to clean up this mess for you? I never supported this war.

I'll say one thing though, the only good thing about Bush getting re-elected is he'll have to carry the can for the war. And so will Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice and the whole neo con gang. They won't be able to say things would have been different if Bush had got a second term.

Its kind of delicious to think ahead to when Bush leaves office to well deserved discredit. One little silver lining to all this misery.

[Patroklos]

no thats not what I said.

Then take this chance to correct this...

well it does actually because that creature in your avatar and others like him such as Rumsfeld have deliberately kept troops numbers down to keep casualties down

[Patroklos]

Its kind of delicious to think ahead to when Bush leaves office to well deserved discredit. One little silver lining to all this misery.

YAY!!! Lets hope and wish for the defeat of democracy for my own political pleasure.

Real class act their AH.

[Alexander's Horse]

another common mistake - confusing the political interests of the Bush Administration with "democracy" or "freedom" or whatever

you really buy the idea that the interests of Bush are synonymous with the foreign policy interests of the USA?

[chequita guevara]

Of course he does. He's a reactionary, just like his master.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


What? you mean I have to clean up this mess for you? I never supported this war.

I'll say one thing though, the only good thing about Bush getting re-elected is he'll have to carry the can for the war. And so will Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice and the whole neo con gang. They won't be able to say things would have been different if Bush had got a second term.

Its kind of delicious to think ahead to when Bush leaves office to well deserved discredit. One little silver lining to all this misery.

Yeah, and then we'll elect either McCain or Hillary, either of whom will apply the force necessary to WIN this war.

[Patroklos]

another common mistake - confusing the political interests of the Bush regime with "democracy" or "freedom" or whatever

Regardless of Bush's actual intentions, or whatever intentions you protect on his actions to serve your twisted political cynicim, the result will invariably be more democratic than before.

But we digress, there was thils little thing about you contridicting yourself and then changing the subject.

I resubmit for your correction yet again....

no thats not what I said.

Then take this chance to correct this...

well it does actually because that creature in your avatar and others like him such as Rumsfeld have deliberately kept troops numbers down to keep casualties down

Squim little worm! Che can't save you.

[DanS]

What? you mean I have to clean up this mess for you? I never supported this war.

I would expect that before you criticize, you form an opinion about what should be done in the alternative. Besides, this continuation of the Gulf War just changed the problems that we had to deal with rather than creating them out of wholecloth.

[Alexander's Horse]

yes and where does that last quote say low troop numbers leads to high casualties?

And don't call me a worm cos Ming sent me a PM about stuff like that so I can't respond as I would like

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DanS


I would expect that before you criticize, you form an opinion about what should be done in the alternative. Besides, this continuation of the Gulf War just changed the problems that we had to deal with rather than creating them out of wholecloth.

nonsense. Iraq was stable, Saddam Hussein was contained, the oil was flowing and Bush just couldn't leave it alone

why? because he thought a short sharp war in Iraq would deliver domestic political gains and reshape the Middle East in ways favourable to US interests.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Squim little worm! Che can't save you.

There was a sale on at the tiny tots section of InsultsRUs I see.

It actually scans quite well. Is it a nursery rhyme ?

[Patroklos]

There was a sale on at the tiny tots section of InsultsRUs I see.

It actually scans quite well. Is it a nursery rhyme ?

OHHH, SNAP. I will go home and cry now...

yes and where does that last quote say low troop numbers leads to high casualties?

If your opinion is we have "have deliberately kept troops numbers down to keep casualties down" then you go ahead and follow that line to its conclusion.

Or continue to squim.

Not like we don't know which one you will choose.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Patroklos


If your opinion is we have "have deliberately kept troops numbers down to keep casualties down" then you go ahead and follow that line to its conclusion.

Or continue to squim.

Not like we don't know which one you will choose.

No I clearly said that was the opinion of the Bush administration, not mine. How did you miss that bit? You keep quoting it.

Separately, the opinion I clearly expressed on casualties was they would be directly proportional to the number of troops, regardless of troop levels, which is quite different, in fact diametrically opposite, to what you keep claiming, rather bizarrely by this stage of the discussion.