And this, IMO, is why people like you can never be put in charge of our national security. To you, a successful military action is apparently defined by how many people are hurt or not.
...perhaps we could have done this better.
Really? How?
Most of what I've seen for alternatives fall under the category of "ignore it and hope it goes away."
A Kerry administration would have pulled out of Iraq already. A Gore administration would never have gone in, and I strongly suspect we would never have invaded Afghanistan with the intent of regime change either. A short Bosnia/Desert Fox style bombing campaign, and everyone comes home safe. What's not to like?
The Democratic tactics of "response" to al Qaeda, Iraq, and other enemies have already been tried. They didn't make us safe, did they?
Current Events » in reply to re: Grim milestone...
"Personally, the number is 1."
The whole thread (47 posts)
- Grim milestone...
- Or
- re: Grim milestone...
- While you're crunching numbers don't forget to add in the injured.
- Don't bother Tom.
- re: Grim milestone...
- Driving up the mountain today...
- re: Grim milestone...
- "Personally, the number is 1."
- Surely you've heard of Pyrrhic victories?
- It was a fair question
- Wait wait wait...hold on there.
- If that strawman was any bigger, I could take it to the Burning Man festival.
- For Tom the loss of life and wealth is not the issue...
- re: For R.L. and others the war is not the issue...
- "The Iraqi civilian dead over the past three years is STILL far less than the average killed annually by Saddam over his regime, "
- WHAT BS
- does that annual average include the Iraq-Iran war and the gassing of the Kurds? (n/t)
- Nice try, but I can see the boilerplate response a mile away. (n/t)
- re: For R.L. and others the war is not the issue...
- re: For R.L. and others the war is not the issue...
- avoiding the question
- Really? How?
- "Personally, the number is 1."
- It shows that our strategy is faulted.
