Very sad indeed. Some will say it's not a lot compared to other wars but that is misguided. It's not a "safer war" but better medical advances keeping the troops alive. It's sad that someones pride has taken the lives of 4000 innocent souls.
Seriously...where is the icon of beating a dead horse? But for the sake of REALITY I have to respond.
Previously I posted stats of DEATHS from other wars when you implied that since this war is the second longest in history it is thereby somehow the most dangerous. I was met with "but we have better medicine now." Ok, fine. Now I'll post the WOUNDED from those other wars for you to compare "apples to apples" as it were:
Civil War: 354,805 WWI: 204,002 WWII: 671,846 Korea: 103,284 Vietnam: 153,303 The current conflict? : As of 2006 there were 20,000 wounded.
What's my point? It's NOT that they aren't significant, OBVIOUSLY they are...but you CAN'T go around saying this war is longer and AS SUCH is therefore MORE DANGEROUS. It's a lie that you can't support with facts....on a debate board no less.
As an aside~
This is from an email that my husband sent to me this morning:
"Sometimes I really wonder what the hell I am doing here at all. This had all better be worth something in the end or what a joke this all is. If Hillary or Obama wins and takes us out of here, it will be a big shame, not to mention a travesty of major proportions. I am currently reading a book by Churchill on the years leading up to WWII and how the nations in the League of Nations were all quite culpable for it. It really makes me wonder if we will look back upon this time and say to ourselves that a lot of bloodshed and misery could have been avoided only if we had stopped them before it got too far. I know that only history will be able to judge."
Previously I posted stats of DEATHS from other wars when you implied that since this war is the second longest in history it is thereby somehow the most dangerous. I was met with "but we have better medicine now." Ok, fine. Now I'll post the WOUNDED from those other wars for you to compare "apples to apples" as it were:
The lie? What a crock. Were nuclear bombs found? No, of course not. But were weapons of mass destruction found? Absolutely, and certainly more would have been found had we acted immediately instead of waiting nearly a year playing "diplomacy games" with Saddam as he laughed in the face of UN resolutions.
"Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Is mustard and sarin nerve agent WMD? Absolutely. Is it the smoking gun that we ALL hoped for? Not by a long shot. But to say there were NO WMD's is a marketing ploy by the media and the liberals who NOW, as monday morning quarterbacks, oppose the war.
Over 100,000 Kurds "disappeared" under Saddam's regime. Mass graves found in 2003 indicate that he exterminated close to 300,000 Kurds, Shias and dissidents. And because of his ego and unwillingness to comply with UN Resolutions, approximately 500,000 Iraqi children died because of sanctions he could have had lifted had he complied with UN law. Frankly, Saddam Hussein HIMSELF was a WMD.
My final opinion of the lie that "WMDs were a lie" can be summed up well by Tony Blair.
"I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong," Blair said. "But I can't, sincerely at least, apologize for removing Saddam.""
Pages
Very sad indeed. Some will say it's not a lot compared to other wars but that is misguided. It's not a "safer war" but better medical advances keeping the troops alive. It's sad that someones pride has taken the lives of 4000 innocent souls.
*sigh*
Seriously...where is the icon of beating a dead horse? But for the sake of REALITY I have to respond.
Previously I posted stats of DEATHS from other wars when you implied that since this war is the second longest in history it is thereby somehow the most dangerous. I was met with "but we have better medicine now." Ok, fine. Now I'll post the WOUNDED from those other wars for you to compare "apples to apples" as it were:
Civil War: 354,805
WWI: 204,002
WWII: 671,846
Korea: 103,284
Vietnam: 153,303
The current conflict? : As of 2006 there were 20,000 wounded.
What's my point? It's NOT that they aren't significant, OBVIOUSLY they are...but you CAN'T go around saying this war is longer and AS SUCH is therefore MORE DANGEROUS. It's a lie that you can't support with facts....on a debate board no less.
As an aside~
This is from an email that my husband sent to me this morning:
"Sometimes I really wonder what the hell I am doing here at all. This had all better be worth something in the end or what a joke this all is. If Hillary or Obama wins and takes us out of here, it will be a big shame, not to mention a travesty of major proportions. I am currently reading a book by Churchill on the years leading up to WWII and how the nations in the League of Nations were all quite culpable for it. It really makes me wonder if we will look back upon this time and say to ourselves that a lot of bloodshed and misery could have been avoided only if we had stopped them before it got too far. I know that only history will be able to judge."
Previously I posted stats of DEATHS from other wars when you implied that since this war is the second longest in history it is thereby somehow the most dangerous. I was met with "but we have better medicine now." Ok, fine. Now I'll post the WOUNDED from those other wars for you to compare "apples to apples" as it were:
You confuse length of war with deaths of troops.
" If we used the firepower we had available and were allowed to do the just correctly we'd not have lost as many as we have or have so many wounded. "
That was exactly my dh's point.
<>
I, for one, am not willing to wait for "history to judge".
The lie? What a crock. Were nuclear bombs found? No, of course not. But were weapons of mass destruction found? Absolutely, and certainly more would have been found had we acted immediately instead of waiting nearly a year playing "diplomacy games" with Saddam as he laughed in the face of UN resolutions.
"Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.""
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Is mustard and sarin nerve agent WMD? Absolutely. Is it the smoking gun that we ALL hoped for? Not by a long shot. But to say there were NO WMD's is a marketing ploy by the media and the liberals who NOW, as monday morning quarterbacks, oppose the war.
Over 100,000 Kurds "disappeared" under Saddam's regime. Mass graves found in 2003 indicate that he exterminated close to 300,000 Kurds, Shias and dissidents. And because of his ego and unwillingness to comply with UN Resolutions, approximately 500,000 Iraqi children died because of sanctions he could have had lifted had he complied with UN law. Frankly, Saddam Hussein HIMSELF was a WMD.
My final opinion of the lie that "WMDs were a lie" can be summed up well by Tony Blair.
"I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong," Blair said. "But I can't, sincerely at least, apologize for removing Saddam.""
Pages