Did I just scare Hapaboy away with my simple question? I am still waiting for that stop loss casualty number....
Israel army has wiped out thousands of palestaniens over the years, yet if they fight back they are 'terrorists'. You got it all wrong canuck, first palestinians attack Israel, then they get wiped out, then they attack israeli civilians, then they get their well-deserved terrorist status and get wiped out again. we are taught that palistinians are sub-human. I don't know about them being sub-human but they were the ones who were dancing in the streets on 9/11.
ZZZ is right about this. We were told the reason to go into Iraq was to prevent the development of WMD's that might present an imminent danger to our country. Democracy, freedom and nation-building are nice themes but that wasn't the rationale. There are numerous other countries in the world where we ignore those ideals, eg Saudi Arabia. The only thing that will restore confidence in the iraq mission is a restatment of why we are there. We simply are not prepared to lose hundreds or thousands more troops, not to mention spend hundreds of billions more, to rebuild Iraq. If we can be shown a rational plan to use our troops to protect our security interests, then maybe. Otherwise, get them out. And would somebody explain to me why we are expected to rebuild a country with the world's third largest oil reserves?
It is such lunacy. Bush destabilizes a country and a region, then claims that we have to stay because Iraq is unstable... Then he blames the instability on everyone but himself. Like a drunk driver plowing into a bus is what it is... Such stupidity...
the japanese are some of the most "racist" people there are.... do you spend alot of time in the fetal position? grow a spine you putz.
The pottery barn rule? Not that I think we should rebuild Iraq but generally speaking that would be a reasonable explanation. We did break it, didn't we?
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon announced Friday that 57,000 U.S. troops, including five combat brigades, have been told to deploy to Iraq early next year â a move that will maintain current force levels there. Bush won't bend. I don't know if the country can stand two more years of this nonsense. Dems need to step up and start playing some real hardball and it needs to start happening today.
Can't give you a number, as much as you want one. The problem with your analogy to a trading stop-loss is that the repercussions of failure in Iraq go far beyond the lives and expense incurred thus far. Since you think it is a simple exercise, perhaps you can simply answer this: How many American military lives are worth preventing a nuclear weapon from being detonated in an American city? And again, how many American lives is it worth to make Iraq a stable democracy if doing so may transform the region, as happened to Eastern Europe?
Hapa, Iraq will never be a stable democracy, the Middle East is not Eastern Europe, Islam is not Christianity or atheism for that matter. When allowed to elect their leaders they elect Hamas, Hezbollah, Muqtada Al Sadr, Ahmadinejad...After WWII there was no insurgency in Western Europe or Japan, americans were actually welcomed as liberators. That's not exactly the case in Iraq, is it? I am sure you mean well but please pay a little attention to the reality.