[ProudBFan]

We need to get several hundred thousand people in the streets chanting, waving signs, burning al Qaeda flags / effigies, and generally making a nuisance of themselves over Zarqawis death. Video-tape that, and blast it around the world.

PBF

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by sa1177

Iraq is already a failure IMO..no point in "hoping" for it.

You clearly get a lot of pleasure from thinking that, so knock yourself out.

I'm just glad that a few people on this board have the good sense to root for us in Iraq, rather than to cheer for our enemies and hope for our defeat as a country.

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

You clearly get a lot of pleasure from thinking that, so knock yourself out.

I'm just glad that a few people on this board have the good sense to root for us in Iraq, rather than to cheer for our enemies and hope for our defeat as a country.

A comment like this made to my face would elicit a fight..what ignorant uninformed statement. Do you think that I don't have friends and family fighting in Iraq currently? Do you think I don't pray for their safe return home every single day?

Where did I ever even remotely suggest that I am not hoping for sucess and a safe return in Iraq for out troops? I merely stated that IMO the campaign in Iraq has already been a collosal failure thus making "sucess" unatainable.

If you consider the deaths of 2000+ American men and women "sucess" then you are quite confused IMO.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by sa1177

What a ignorant statement. Where did I ever even remotely suggest that I am not hoping for sucess and a safe return in Iraq for out troops? I merely stated that IMO the campaign in Iraq has already been a collosal failure thus making "sucess" unatainable.

Maybe you better sit down and think real hard about what you really believe, because it's not at all clear from the above. You say, on the one hand, that you are hoping for success in Iraq, but then you immediately say that success is unattainable. Well, which is it?

The latter statement is ridiculous, of course. I won't try to explain the illogic of it to you, but maybe you can figure it out by yourself.

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Maybe you better sit down and think real hard about what you really believe, because it's not at all clear from the above. You say, on the one hand, that you are hoping for success in Iraq, but then you immediately say that success is unattainable. Well, which is it?

The latter statement is ridiculous, of course. I won't try to explain the illogic of it to you, but maybe you can figure it out by yourself.

Answer me this...How do 2000+ dead American men and women equal sucess? I said I hope for the safe return of our troops from Iraq..unfort. 2000+ deaths make that pretty unattainable don't you think? Regardless of the future political, social, and economic outcomes no matter how positive 2000+ American lives is way to steep a price to pay IMO.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by sa1177

Answer me this...How do 2000+ dead American men and women equal sucess?

What war has ever been fought without a loss of life?

We lost over 300,000 soldiers fighting Hitler in WWII. In one small part of that war, the taking of Guadalcanal in 1942-43, we lost 3,000 sailors and marines. One thousand marines were killed in 72 hours taking the island of Betio in the Tarawa atoll. Five thousand died at Iwo Jima. Twelve thousand at Okinawa, including 5,000 sailors killed by Japanese suicide bombers, known in those days as Kamikazes. Seven hundred fifty soldiers died in a rehearsal for the Normandy invasion. The US population at the time was roughly half what it is today, so those were staggering losses for the country. Yet we helped turn the tide against Hitler, liberated Europe, and changed the course of history. Despite losing over 300,000 American soldiers, that war was a tremendous success.

You really should read a book sometime. It would do you worlds of good.

[ProudBFan]

Get a room, you two.



PBF

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

What war has ever been fought without a loss of life?

We lost over 300,000 soldiers fighting Hitler in WWII. In one small part of that war, the taking of Guadalcanal in 1942-43, we lost 3,000 sailors and marines. One thousand marines were killed in 72 hours taking the island of Betio in the Tarawa atoll. Five thousand died at Iwo Jima. Twelve thousand at Okinawa, including 5,000 sailors killed by Japanese suicide bombers, known in those days as Kamikazes. Seven hundred fifty soldiers died in a rehearsal for the Normandy invasion. The US population at the time was roughly half what it is today, so those were staggering losses for the country. Yet we helped turn the tide against Hitler, liberated Europe, and changed the course of history. Despite losing over 300,000 American soldiers, that war was a tremendous success.

You really should read a book sometime. It would do you worlds of good.

Just a note: I guarantee I am quite a bit more well read then you think.

I feel the accomplishments made in Iraq have not been worth the lives lost, what part of that is so hard for you to understand? You need to understand that people have different feelings about issues such as these then you do and that it is completely ridiculous to attempt to attack their inteligence, character, and patriotism because of it.

[ProudBFan]

This thread has most definately turned personal.

PBF

[Dan]

aaaaaaaand lets get back on topic...

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by sa1177

I feel the accomplishments made in Iraq have not been worth the lives lost, what part of that is so hard for you to understand?

What you said was, "How do 2000+ dead American men and women equal sucess?" Well, no war is measured simply by the amount of casualties you suffer--it's measured primarily by whether you achieve the ends you set out to achieve. You may disagree with those ends in Iraq, but to measure our success by the comparatively small loss of life we have suffered is ridiculous.

The only way your statement makes sense is if we planned on winning this war without suffering any casualties. And NO ONE DID.

If you want to argue that we shouldn't be in Iraq, and therefore any loss of life is inexcusable, then go ahead. But that's a whole different argument, and not what you said in the post above.

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

What you said was, "How do 2000+ dead American men and women equal sucess?" Well, no war is measured simply by the amount of casualties you suffer--it's measured primarily by whether you achieve the ends you set out to achieve. You may disagree with those ends in Iraq, but to measure our success by the comparatively small loss of life we have suffered is ridiculous.

The only way your statement makes sense is if we planned on winning this war without suffering any casualties. And NO ONE DID.

If you want to argue that we shouldn't be in Iraq, and therefore any loss of life is inexcusable, then go ahead. But that's a whole different argument, and not what you said in the post above.

If Iraq was not in a utter state of lawlessness and chaos then I might be more apt to think that the sacrifices that we have made are somewhat acceptable.

Two thousand lives is "a small loss?" I am sorry but I just can't fathom how anyone could think that. I understand that comparatively this may be true but IMO 2000+ lives is no "small loss." The U.S. certainly never intended to lose that many lives at the outset of the Iraq invasion.

[Scout226]

Originally Posted by ProudBFan

We need to get several hundred thousand people in the streets chanting, waving signs, burning al Qaeda flags / effigies, and generally making a nuisance of themselves over Zarqawis death. Video-tape that, and blast it around the world.

PBF

I like your idea PBF..