Bush's Wars Cost Each US Family $20,000

[Rogue52]

Herbiedoobie, Iraq did NOT attack us on 9/11. They were NOT our biggest threat when the decision was made to invade Iraq. We had Saddam in a box. It was an absolutely idiotic decision to invade Iraq.

A country didn't attack us on 9/11, a terrorist network did. And that terrorist network was/is all over the world including Iraq AND including our own country. Or wait, they were everywhere else in the world EXCEPT Iraq, right?

You can make the argument that they weren't the biggest threat, but you also didn't/don't have access to the intelligence provided by the CIA, etc. That is an argument that history can judge. For now, I support taking down terrorism all over the world. Maybe we don't have to start with the biggest threat to take down the overall enemy. If you think that idea is stupid, see the Cold War. And we were pretty successful with that.

 

[Stormin]

A country didn't attack us on 9/11, a terrorist network did. And that terrorist network was/is all over the world including Iraq AND including our own country. Or wait, they were everywhere else in the world EXCEPT Iraq, right?

You can make the argument that they weren't the biggest threat, but you also didn't/don't have access to the intelligence provided by the CIA, etc. That is an argument that history can judge. For now, I support taking down terrorism all over the world. Maybe we don't have to start with the biggest threat to take down the overall enemy. If you think that idea is stupid, see the Cold War. And we were pretty successful with that.

They were mostly Saudis. Bin Laden is a Saudi. There were No Iraqis involved in 9/11. Al Qaeda was concentrated in Afghanistan prior to the Iraq War. They weren't believed to have much of a presence in Iraq prior to the War. Perhaps we should have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. After all, Al Qaeda was financed with Saudi money, not Iraqi money.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

A country didn't attack us on 9/11, a terrorist network did. And that terrorist network was/is all over the world including Iraq AND including our own country. Or wait, they were everywhere else in the world EXCEPT Iraq, right?

You can make the argument that they weren't the biggest threat, but you also didn't/don't have access to the intelligence provided by the CIA, etc. That is an argument that history can judge. For now, I support taking down terrorism all over the world. Maybe we don't have to start with the biggest threat to take down the overall enemy. If you think that idea is stupid, see the Cold War. And we were pretty successful with that.

The weight of the evidence that a terrorist network existed in Iraq prior to and concurrent with 9/11 with evil designs against the USA is proximately equal to the weight of evidence that a terrorist network with evil designs against the USA existed in Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and the Vatican.

Instead of Iraq, maybe we should have invaded these destinations. These places were probably as good as anywhere else in the world to start "taking down terrorism" if you don't know where the viable threats to our security are located.

 

[Rogue52]

They were mostly Saudis. Bin Laden is a Saudi. There were No Iraqis involved in 9/11. Al Qaeda was concentrated in Afghanistan prior to the Iraq War. They weren't believed to have much of a presence in Iraq prior to the War. Perhaps we should have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. After all, Al Qaeda was financed with Saudi money, not Iraqi money.

Apparently you missed my post, we were attacked by a terrorist organization that was all over the world AND in our own country. Yes, most of Al Qaeda is of Saudi origin but nations ALL OVER THE world give them sanctuary INCLUDING Saddam Hussein when he was a dictator. These are known facts. And actually Saudi Arabia is one country that doesn't harbor terror otherwise they would all stay there wouldn't they? And if you forget, we did weed out Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda was/is all over the world INCLUDING southern Florida. But we are to believe they weren't in Iraq???

 

[Rogue52]

The weight of the evidence that a terrorist network existed in Iraq prior to and concurrent with 9/11 with evil designs against the USA is proximately equal to the weight of evidence that a terrorist network with evil designs against the USA existed in Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and the Vatican.

Instead of Iraq, maybe we should have invaded these destinations. These places were probably as good as anywhere else in the world to start "taking down terrorism" if you don't know where the viable threats to our security are located.

Unfortunately for your argument, those countries didn't have a history of a dictator that used chemical and biological weapons against his own people and was known as funding terrorism. Your weight of evidence argument actually contained no weight except for you saying it did.

And again, in the Cold War we didn't go after the biggest piece of the puzzle to begin with and we were pretty damn successful albeit 40 years later. And if you didn't know, the War on Terrorism will last alot more than 5 years in Iraq. It's a decades long war with many battle fields just as the Cold War ended up being.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Unfortunately for your argument, those countries didn't have a history of a dictator that used chemical and biological weapons against his own people and was known as funding terrorism. Your weight of evidence argument actually contained no weight except for you saying it did.

And again, in the Cold War we didn't go after the biggest piece of the puzzle to begin with and we were pretty damn successful albeit 40 years later. And if you didn't know, the War on Terrorism will last alot more than 5 years in Iraq. It's a decades long war with many battle fields just as the Cold War ended up being.

Most of my arguments are unfortunate I am told. I guess that is my cross to bear.

You will have to forgive me but I really do not understand some of what you say. Namely, what has the Cold War got to do with the War on Terrorism? And could you explain what you are talking about when you say "we didn't go after the biggest piece of the puzzle to begin with"?

And you are right, I was unaware that the War on Terrorism is as you describe: "its a decades long war with many battle fields just as the Cold War ended up being." Clue me in. What were the many battle fields of the Cold War that are illustrative of the many battles to come in the War on Terrorism?

Lastly, I am puzzled. What relevance is the absence of a "dictator who used chemical and biological weapons against his own people and know for funding terrorist" in Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and the Vatican and the terrorist networks existing there relative to the identical terrorist network that existed in Iraq (9/11 concurrent)?

 

[Cyclonepride]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] Received this in an email [/FONT]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] Military Deaths since 1980..an eye-opener[/FONT]

Military Death Numbers

Below is some very interesting data in reference to deaths in the military. I guarantee you will not read this in your local newspaper, nor will you see it on the daily t.v.news broadcast. I pray this will help you to enlighten folks around you to the brave and courageous young people serving in our military.

Deaths in the Military:

1980 .......... 2,392

1981 ....... 2,380

1982 .......... 2,318

1983 ......... 2,465

1984 .......... 1,999

1985 .......... 2,252

1986 .......... 1,984

1987 .......... 1,983

1988 ......... 1,819

1989 ......... 1,636

1990 .......... 1,508

1991 .......... 1,787

1 992 .......... 1,293

1993 ......... 1,213

1994 ........ 1,075

1995 .......... 1,040

1996 ......... 974

1997 .......... 817

1998 ......... 826

1999 ........ 795

2000 .......... 774

2001 ........ 890

2002 .......... 1,007

2003 ......... 1,410 [534*] 2004 ......... 1,887 [900*]

2005 ......... [919*] 2006 ........ [920*]
Figures noted with an asterisk (*) indicates deaths as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom .



Please note that more military peole died during Bill Clinton's terms of office due to accidents and Somalia, than have died in *OIF/*OEF !!

You may initially feel confused when you look at these figures - especially when you see that in 1980, during the term of President Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities. What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose and tend to present ONLY those facts that support their agenda-driven reporting.





Another fact which our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities........Wrong again !! - The latest census shows the following:







European descent (white)..... 69.12%
Hispanic................................ 12.5%

African American................... 12.3%

Asian..................................... 3.7%

Native American.................... 1.0%

Other.............. ....................... 2.6%

The fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:

European descent (white)..... 74.31%
Hispanic................................ 10.74%

African American....... 9.67%

Asian..................................... 1.81%

Native American.................... 1.09%

Other..................................... 2.33%

These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at: [FONT='Times New Roman','serif']http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdfjavascript:ol('http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf');[/FONT]








​

​

 

[iceclone]

Military Death Numbers

Below is some very interesting data in reference to deaths in the military. I guarantee you will not read this in your local newspaper, nor will you see it on the daily t.v.news broadcast. I pray this will help you to enlighten folks around you to the brave and courageous young people serving in our military.

Deaths in the Military:

1980 .......... 2,392

1981 ....... 2,380

1982 .......... 2,318

1983 ......... 2,465

1984 .......... 1,999

1985 .......... 2,252

1986 .......... 1,984

1987 .......... 1,983

1988 ......... 1,819

1989 ......... 1,636

1990 .......... 1,508

1991 .......... 1,787

1 992 .......... 1,293

1993 ......... 1,213

1994 ........ 1,075

1995 .......... 1,040

1996 ......... 974

1997 .......... 817

1998 ......... 826

1999 ........ 795

2000 .......... 774

2001 ........ 890

2002 .......... 1,007

2003 ......... 1,410 [534*] 2004 ......... 1,887 [900*]

2005 ......... [919*] 2006 ........ [920*]
Figures noted with an asterisk (*) indicates deaths as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom .



Please note that more military peole died during Bill Clinton's terms of office due to accidents and Somalia, than have died in *OIF/*OEF !!

You may initially feel confused when you look at these figures - especially when you see that in 1980, during the term of President Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities. What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose and tend to present ONLY those facts that support their agenda-driven reporting.

Do you know what these numbers are supposed to illustrate? There seem to be two trends:

1. During the 80s and 90s there appears to have been a steady decrease of non-combat military deaths. Possible causes might be better safety protocols, improved medical service, better training, etc. In any case, from these numbers indicate that the military was improving its safety record during this period.

2. During the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, the non-combat deaths appear to have remained stable at the new level, and the total fatalities have seen a sharp increase, corresponding exactly to fatalities in those two countries.

Kudos to the military for reducing non-combat fatalities during the 80s and 90s. Am I missing something else?

 

[CloneAggie]

Below is some very interesting data in reference to deaths in the military. I guarantee you will not read this in your local newspaper, nor will you see it on the daily t.v.news broadcast. I pray this will help you to enlighten folks around you to the brave and courageous young people serving in our military.

With a little effort, the original data can be found. And some interesting things can be noted. First, the percent of deaths as a percent of active duty has roughly doubled since 2001 and is back at the levels of 1980. The raw number of deaths due to accident decreased fairly dramatically in 1992, and has stayed fairly stable since then minus a couple outliers. Obviously the percent of deaths due to hostile action is dramatically higher since 2002.

Finally, it appears that we are much better in the current war in preventing death from wounds. The ratio of deaths to wounded is 1:7.6 for Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is more than twice as good as Operation Enduring Freedom and way better than any other war. Thus, it appears that advances in treating our wounded is keeping our number of deaths down, which without a doubt is a good thing.

The original report can be found here. I calculated some percentages in the attached document.

 

[Rogue52]

You will have to forgive me but I really do not understand some of what you say. Namely, what has the Cold War got to do with the War on Terrorism? And could you explain what you are talking about when you say "we didn't go after the biggest piece of the puzzle to begin with"?

And you are right, I was unaware that the War on Terrorism is as you describe: "its a decades long war with many battle fields just as the Cold War ended up being." Clue me in. What were the many battle fields of the Cold War that are illustrative of the many battles to come in the War on Terrorism?

Korea, Vietnam, Cuban Missle Crisis, Afghan War, etc.

The Cuban Missle Crisis may not be a traditional battle but many of these types of "battles" will take place during the War on Terrorism.

"The biggest piece of the puzzle" in the Cold War = Soviet Union. We took on many of the Satellite nations which helped end communism. So, I'll let you fill in what you believe to be the biggest piece of the puzzle in the War on Terrorism since you believe there to be bigger problems than Iraq. Ridding the dictatorship out of Iraq can have an impact on other larger entities especially if democracy and freedom in Iraq take hold.

Still waiting for your weight of evidence that includes detailed CIA reports that say the Vatican was just as dangerous as Iraq. Instead of providing it, you just took the woe is me argument by saying that you "have a cross to bear" of alternative arguments.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Do you know what these numbers are supposed to illustrate? There seem to be two trends:

1. During the 80s and 90s there appears to have been a steady decrease of non-combat military deaths. Possible causes might be better safety protocols, improved medical service, better training, etc. In any case, from these numbers indicate that the military was improving its safety record during this period.

2. During the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, the non-combat deaths appear to have remained stable at the new level, and the total fatalities have seen a sharp increase, corresponding exactly to fatalities in those two countries.

Kudos to the military for reducing non-combat fatalities during the 80s and 90s. Am I missing something else?

Being in the military is an inherently dangerous job, with or without combat. I find it interesting that the media and democrat's portrayal of "getting our service people out of harm's way" implies that we can actually get them out of harm's way. During peacetime, I haven't seen any of these people crawling over each other to report non-combat deaths. It's almost surprising that we don't see a realtime death count over the shoulder of our network news anchors.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Most of my arguments are unfortunate I am told. I guess that is my cross to bear.

You will have to forgive me but I really do not understand some of what you say. Namely, what has the Cold War got to do with the War on Terrorism? And could you explain what you are talking about when you say "we didn't go after the biggest piece of the puzzle to begin with"?

And you are right, I was unaware that the War on Terrorism is as you describe: "its a decades long war with many battle fields just as the Cold War ended up being." Clue me in. What were the many battle fields of the Cold War that are illustrative of the many battles to come in the War on Terrorism?

Lastly, I am puzzled. What relevance is the absence of a "dictator who used chemical and biological weapons against his own people and know for funding terrorist" in Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and the Vatican and the terrorist networks existing there relative to the identical terrorist network that existed in Iraq (9/11 concurrent)?

I have to believe that those questions are being asked to test the knowledge of the person you are debating, because I know you are intelligent enough to know the answers to those questions.

The roots of the war on terrorism go well beyond the Cold War, beyond even the aftermath of both world wars, to the colonial period. Each period has added artificial borders and expedient solutions that later created even more problems. Which makes it quite silly to even consider that the problem can be solved quickly or easily.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Korea, Vietnam, Cuban Missle Crisis, Afghan War, etc.

The Cuban Missle Crisis may not be a traditional battle but many of these types of "battles" will take place during the War on Terrorism.

"The biggest piece of the puzzle" in the Cold War = Soviet Union. We took on many of the Satellite nations which helped end communism. So, I'll let you fill in what you believe to be the biggest piece of the puzzle in the War on Terrorism since you believe there to be bigger problems than Iraq. Ridding the dictatorship out of Iraq can have an impact on other larger entities especially if democracy and freedom in Iraq take hold.

Still waiting for your weight of evidence that includes detailed CIA reports that say the Vatican was just as dangerous as Iraq. Instead of providing it, you just took the woe is me argument by saying that you "have a cross to bear" of alternative arguments.

Woe is me argument? I guess that will be my last lame attempt at self-deprecration.

Last item first. I selected the names of Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and the Vatican to be terrorist network locations at random to make a point. My point, perhaps somewhat obtuse, was that the evidence of a threat to the United States from any terrorist network located in Iraq pre and concurrent with 9/11 was proximately equal to the evidence of a threat to the United States from terrorist networks located in Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and the Vatican. Which, stated in other words, means that there was in fact no actual terrorist threat to the United State from any of these places. Since I picked out these locations at random, there are no CIA reports to provide you regarding terrorist activity located in Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and the Vatican. But, it is a matter of public record that CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress in February 2001 and said that Iraq posed no threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East.

GWB makes the argument that the War on Terror is linked to the Cold War. Apparently you agree. I think not. I do not believe that the War on Terror is our Cold War II. Nor do I do think, for a variety of reasons, that the features of Cold War I are all that similar to those of the War on Terror: (a) our Cold War I foreign policy at its core was anti-communism, not so in the War on Terror, (b) the War on Terror is a regional conflict rooted in the Middle East (GWB attempted to include North Korea to the War on Terror, however, North Korea is a nuclear threat, not a sponsor of terrorism), Cold War I had more global reach - armed conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan were between side aligned with either the USA or Russia, (c) Cold War I was dominated by two ideologies, in the War on Terror - terrorism employs multiple ideologies ranging from nationalism to Islamic fundamentalism, (d) Cold War I had no problems defining enemies, both side agreed who were the antagonists, (e) Cold War I was waged by nation states - either by the principles or their proxies, the War on Terror is driven by sub-national forces. One can go on identifying differences and making distinctions between the Cold War and the War on Terror ad infinitum.

In any case, if we are to be successful in waging the war on terror, our diplomacy and strategy needs to be vastly different than anti-communist fare we did in the Cold War days.

Lastly, to say that ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein "can have an impact on other larger entities especially if democracy and freedom in Iraq take hold" is simply idle rhetoric.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Being in the military is an inherently dangerous job, with or without combat. I find it interesting that the media and democrat's portrayal of "getting our service people out of harm's way" implies that we can actually get them out of harm's way. During peacetime, I haven't seen any of these people crawling over each other to report non-combat deaths. It's almost surprising that we don't see a realtime death count over the shoulder of our network news anchors.

"Being in the military is an inherently dangerous job, with or without combat." I don't agree with that statement entirely. Some forms of duty are quite similar to a structured civilian employment setting. If, however, you have a combat MOS, I would agree.

I don't think I understand the rest of what you said or is this just another one of your meaningless shots at the media and democrats?

 

[herbiedoobie]

To spell it out for you, Johnny: The media, and the post Viet Nam era democrats couldn't care LESS how many soldiers die, unless they can advance their political agenda by exploiting those deaths. In fact, I would propose that a significant number of the media and post-VN era democrats ACTIVELY HATE the military, and consider anyone who serves a low-life baby-murdering scum. I base this on the result of each and every conversation I've been forced to endure from the anti-military liberals who feel the need to tell me "how things really are in Iraq" once they discover that I've served there. They're all "nicey-nicey" and condenscending, until I disagree with one of their points. Then it's all spittle, and shrieking, and "SOLDIERS MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE!!!!!"

I'm sure they don't share their hatred of all things military with some of their "pet" military veterans, though. Otherwise, I'm sure you would've received the memo on that.

 

[Stormin]

To spell it out for you, Johnny: The media, and the post Viet Nam era democrats couldn't care LESS how many soldiers die, unless they can advance their political agenda by exploiting those deaths. In fact, I would propose that a significant number of the media and post-VN era democrats ACTIVELY HATE the military, and consider anyone who serves a low-life baby-murdering scum. I base this on the result of each and every conversation I've been forced to endure from the anti-military liberals who feel the need to tell me "how things really are in Iraq" once they discover that I've served there. They're all "nicey-nicey" and condenscending, until I disagree with one of their points. Then it's all spittle, and shrieking, and "SOLDIERS MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE!!!!!"

I'm sure they don't share their hatred of all things military with some of their "pet" military veterans, though. Otherwise, I'm sure you would've received the memo on that.

I hope this is one of your sarcastic rants. You really can't be serious. Or filled with that much hate. Wow.

 

[cmoneyr]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say no, it wasn't sarcastic, and yes, he can be filled with that much hate.

 

[herbiedoobie]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say no, it wasn't sarcastic, and yes, he can be filled with that much hate.

"Hate" is the buzz-word liberals use to describe it when someone just kicked their butt in an argument, and they don't have anything else.

 

[cmoneyr]

"Hate" is the buzz-word liberals use to describe it when someone just kicked their butt in an argument, and they don't have anything else.

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[herbiedoobie]

That makes absolutely no sense.

What you MEAN to say, is that you do not understand the point. The point makes sense. Namecalling and accusing others of "hate" (which in itself is nonsensical) is the standard liberal recourse upon losing an argument.