An under reported perspective.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 30, 2004, 2:28 pm

11,000 casualties should be a cause for great rejoicing. This has been one of the most bloodless encounters in the history of warfare. There were 1,500,000 Vietnamese casualties in the Vietnam war. 204,000 killed in action in the Civil War.

There were 30 MILLION civilian casualties in World War 2. Add another 25 million military casualties to that war. That would mean there have been about .02% of the casualties from WW2 in this "war".

It is only about 3.5 times as many people that were killed in the attacks on the civilians in the World Trade Center attacks.

There are a lot of things you could bitch about with this action in Iraq....but speed and efficiency are not among them. It is pretty fucking debateable whether you could really bitch about the casualties...especially seeing as how Saddam killed a shit ton more than this war's numbers will EVER see.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 30, 2004, 3:12 pm

I like how an administration getting financial gain changes to "he."

People think that Bush went to war without credible information. I think that the information received (which if I remember right) came from outside agencies (European) intel. This same information was later (after the war started) proven to be wrong. The administration has gone through more than many previously. 9/11 alone changed the way that the Bush administration HAD to react to global diplomacy. Personally, I thought it was interesting that he was the first US President to acknowledge that Palestine existed early in his tenure as President.

Oh, and I am not a Bush supporter. I never voted for him, but I think that the Bush bashers right now might as well be the Budweiser Clydesdales (sp) with their blinders on chanting "Bush just wants oil," or even "Kerry will get us out and fix everything." If we're not out before/if Kerry wins, personally I think the situation will be much worse.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 30, 2004, 4:05 pm

Kerry has said that they need to be there in order to improve security just under a UN banner.

In light of the budget cuts in intell and laws preventing reliable intell methods to be used; I am not surprised by the lack of reliable information that was available. So lets look at the situation this way. If the info was true and what everyone was saying to you were true could you not afford to sit on your ass and risk endagering civilians on your own soil? I know I could not.

I am proud of the job we are doing in Iraq and I support thier mission.

The truth is we will never know if this was the right thing to do. Only history will judge that 100 years from now.

Traz-KOE · Post by **Traz-KOE** » June 30, 2004, 4:28 pm

Arilain wrote:The truth is we will never know if this was the right thing to do. Only history will judge that 100 years from now.

I disagree. Rather, I think damn near everyone is passing judgement on the "rightness" of this action even now. History's future dertermination of the issue will be based on the ideas that are being argued today.