Is hanging of Saddam worth 3,000 US soldiers and $400 bln?

Yet you want the US to pull out so terrorists can take over, and that's your way of pretending to care?

 

To this military veteran, it is an amazing thing that you could think that the hanging of Sadaam is the only positive benefit for which these brave troops gave their lives!

 

Some people never look at the big picture.

 

what big picture? over 100,000 dead, the middle east destablized, Iraq in a civil war

What part of the big picture are you guys talking about?

 

please list some benefits? how has the US, or soldiers benefited by invading that country?

 

A prime example. My point made once again.

 

Do you mean the "dumb soldiers" that you and kerry often reference?

 

is it too difficult to list some of your points, what we have gained in the "big picture"?

 

So you are saying that it is "too difficult to list" "what we have gained in the big picture"?

Ok, I gotcha!

 

2006: Iraq says 12,000 of their civilians/military/police force died.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070102/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_casualties
---------------------------------------
Was it worth starting...no, but then my thoughts are a bit different on whether it needs to be finished properly.

 

is that one of the good points of the war?

 

Death...no. I just thought I'd post it since I was reading it.

 

The good points are only seen after the war is over. War itself rarely if ever has any "good points". Does the end justify the means? In the end, that is all that matters and time will tell.

 

No one complains about the carpet bombing of germany or japan. The literal nazi-like tactic of denazification...where thousands of suspected nazi's died of slave labor under american rule.

These things happened, and to a point they actually won the war, and prevented those countries from ever gaining conflict again. Not to mention we 'occupied' europe for quite sometime.

If people were principled they'd have moral reasons to say what was done was wrong. But I don't believe it's morals (often), it could be just a matter of their own political interests.

 

The question was "Why aren't you fighting in Iraq?"
Not "did you serve in the Army"?
Bush also served in the army, but not in Nam.

 

There is great shortage of soldiers willing to go in Iraq.
Suggestion to the war supporters here don't miss this chance to fight the "terrorists" pack up and go

All you need to have is GUTS

I know some we'll say "We have served in the army". Very good! That's what the army needs. Trained soldiers ready to go.

 

............While the U.S. government and military provide no death totals for Iraqis, ............
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070102/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_casualties

Now we know that it is not Bush's admin priority to count the Iraqi deaths.

As far as my memory serves me it was the Saudy terrorists who took down the towers. NOT the Iraqi terrorists if there were any.

I know one thing for sure. - Everyone is accountable before God for his deeds.

 

Also, the Nazi's did not destroy Carthage and salt the ground.

Now, do we have any more unrelated facts to discuss?

 

Dude that stuff happened like 60 years ago , and the nazis where invading countries trying to take over the world, a little different then Iraq

I don't even understand how the 2 wars are comparable, really.

Maybe if some college kids protested in Iraq it would outrage you rick, you seem to be more upset about a few war protesters in SF, then over 100,000 people dead somewhere else. Odd set of priorities if you ask me.

 

what are you talking about?, in WWII we saw good points everytime we took ground and drove the nazis out. Every time we ended nazi occupation and aggression is was a good point.

What have we done in Iraq? According to Gtech we let the WMDs slip away, according to rest of the world their wasn't any.

The country is in choas, mass killings, refugees, torture and street executions. There is no way to say it was worse under saddam, its worse now.