Allied victories since 9/11

2

202typical

Long Time Member
Messages
3,123
Allied victories since 9/11

1. No mega-attacks on US, UK or Australia.
2. No WMD attack.
3. Afghanistan liberated. Taliban deposed.
4. Al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan destroyed. (The bad news is they have moved to Pakistan.)
5. Afghanistan election.
6. Iraq liberated. Saddam deposed and executed. Greatest military victory of the West since the end of World War Two in 1945.
7. After years of post-liberation fighting, Iraqi "resistance" still holds no territory and its popular support has not grown. Thousands of jihad fighters have died for nothing.
8. Iraq election.
9. Second Battle of Fallujah
10. The front in this War on Islamism has been moved from the streets of America to where it should be fought - in the streets of the Middle East.
11. Lebanon revolution.
12. Lebanon destroys Fatah al-Islam.
13. Libya abandons WMD program.
14. Islamists defeated in Somalia.
15. Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim state, is now rated "Free".
16. Bush re-elected. Kerry defeated.
17. Blair re-elected.
18. Howard re-elected. Latham defeated.
19. Harper elected. Martin defeated. Canada back to normal.
20. Merkel elected. Schr?der defeated. Germany back to normal.
21. Sarkozy elected. Royal defeated. Chirac out. France back to normal. "Axis of Weasels" is finished.
22. Saddam captured, executed.
23. His sons dead.
24. Chemical Ali captured, sentenced to death.
25. Tariq Aziz captured.
26. Saddam's intelligence chief executed.
27. Saddam's chief judge executed.
28. Saddam's vice-president executed.
29. Saddam's Defence Minister captured, sentenced to death.
30. Al-Zarqawi dead (leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq).
31. Sheikh Mansour dead (religious leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq).
32. Hamad Jama al-Saedi captured (second in command of Al-Qaeda in Iraq).
33. Muntasir al-Jibouri captured (leader of Ansar al Sunnah in Iraq).
34. Muharib Abdul Latif al-Jubouri dead (Al-Qaeda in Iraq).
35. Khaled al-Mashhadani captured (Al-Qaeda in Iraq).
36. Abu Jurah dead (Al-Qaeda in Iraq).
37. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed captured (the Butcher of 9/11, killer of Daniel Pearl).
38. Shamil Basayev dead (the Butcher of Beslan).
39. Hambali captured (the Butcher of Bali).
40. Azahari bin Husin dead (the Butcher of Bali).
41. Mustafa Nasar captured (the Butcher of Madrid and London).
42. Abdul Hadi al Iraqi captured (the Butcher of London).
43. Mohammed Atef dead (the Butcher of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings).
44. Mushin Musa Matwalli Atwah dead (the Butcher of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings).
45. Leader of Al Qaeda in Turkey captured (the Butcher of Istanbul).
46. Abu Ali al-Harithi dead (USS Cole bomber).
47. Tawfiq bin Attash captured (USS Cole bomber).
48. Midhat Mursi dead (Al Qaeda).
49. Abu Zubaydah captured (Al Qaeda).
50. Mohammed Jamal Khalifa dead (Al Qaeda).
51. Abu Faraj al-Libbi captured (Al Qaeda).
52. Abu Hamza Rabia dead (Al Qaeda).
53. Mullah Dadullah dead (Taliban butcher).
54. Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Osmani dead (Taliban).
55. Mullah Brother dead (Taliban).
56. Taliban defense minister Mullah Obaidullah captured.
57. Abdullah Mehsud dead (Taliban).
58. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar captured (Afghan Islamofascist).
59. Abu Hamza jailed.
60. Omar Bakri Muhammad expelled.
61. Abdullah El-Faisal expelled.
62. Palestinian intifada defeated.
63. Palestinian civil war begins between Fatah and Hamas. As Charles Johnson says: "I'm rooting for both sides to achieve their objectives."
64. Arafat dead.
65. Abu Abbas dead (Palestine Liberation Front).
66. Mahmoud Zatme dead (Islamic Jihad).
67. Yassin dead (leader of Hamas).
68. Rantissi dead (leader of Hamas).

TERRORIST/ISLAMOFACIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 911 = 0



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
Saddam and his chronies being captured killed I'll give you,as if it really mattered anyway. the rest is pure speculation if you're trying to justify the war in Iraq. attempts have been made to attack on US soil since 9/11, and who caught them? law enforcement, they deserve the credit.
 
> Saddam and his chronies
>being captured killed I'll give
>you,as if it really mattered
>anyway. the rest is pure
>speculation if you're trying to
>justify the war in Iraq.
> attempts have been made
>to attack on US soil
>since 9/11, and who caught
>them? law enforcement, they deserve
>the credit.

So it has nothing to do with the job our military is doing? The central war on al Quida acording to Osama, their leader. Nothing?

I friggin dare you to say that to the face of a Marine that just returned home from Iraq.

Secondly you have stated here before many times that Bush should get the blame for everything that goes wrong with the war, natural disaters, terrorist attacks ect. ect. So when things go right Bush is not allowed credit? You can't have it both ways Dude. Give credit where credit is due. You discredit yourself with ignorant statements like this Dude!


?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
Maybe we should have sent marshalls in to arrest bin Laden, maybe they'ld have got him? you do know he's still alive and free right?

202 prove that Iraq has saved us from any attacks on US soil, Petreaus wouldn't say Iraq has made us any safer but you preach as if it's a well known fact. there was no al Qaida in Iraq until we made room for them, we can end it there though right? keep living in your fantasy world if it makes you feel better, it's coming to an end and most of us aren't too worried.
 
You still did not adress Bush getting credit.

Secondly it is obvious your didsdane for our fighting men if you do not think they are making a difference.



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
If you want Bush to get credit for no more attacks since 9/11 then he takes credit for 9/11 too right? or you just want the sweet without the bitter? Prove the war in Iraq has been the reason, if you can't then your theory is hypothetical.

How do you figure I hold the fighting men in low regaurds because their leader sent then into the wrong battle? they're following orders, that's how it works. the voters of this country are responsible for electing leaders who'll give them the correct orders, if we're too stupid to do that how do you blame those in uniform? we did just this last Nov with the dems getting a landslide mid term victory, but Bush by a few votes still retains enough of congress to uphold his veto. so in essence Bush is holding our fighting men where the American people and congress don't want them. you have the nerve to say I have disdain for those caught in a war that should not have been? our leaders let us and our fighting men down, your crap about support the war or you hate the troops doesn't fly anymore. even the dummies who believed in the war at first are onto you and your tactics, the war is ending, give it up.
 
Dude

Perhaps you should read Bill Clintons words about Saddam again.





Exerpt from CNN.com

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

Wednesday, December 16, 1998
 
AMEN 202.......A F'N MEN

WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT BROTHER

SGT MIKE


Aim Center Mass
 
Viking, if your too dumb to debate just keep doing what you're doing.

Overton, those words were from'98, did Clinton start a war in Iraq we didn't hear about?

What didn't change and he was right on the money is Cheney's '94 interview stating the reasons Bush Sr. didn't go into Iraq in 1990 . too bad Cheney's memory is as bad as his gun handling skills. it would have saved us a lot of trouble, money and 3800 American lives proving Bush Sr. was smarter than his kid.
 
So sorry Dude but your double talk is catching up with you. You can not have it both ways. You sound like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy combined.
I know my nephew, a Marine Corps sniper, is laying it on the line every day so butt holes like you and I can sit on our fat a$$es and post on MM. I/we/you are safer because of their bravery. To say anything less is a slap in the face to these brave young men and women. They are heros each and every one of them.
You got to give credit where credit is due. I know you hate Bush and all the Republicans except Ron Paul. Fine. But don't go around here trying to belittle what our troops are doing. It don't fly. Man up and show some Patriotism for Gods sake. At least act like you love your country if for nothing more than to support the troops who are fighting and dieing for YOU!!!!



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
No way, I didn't ask them to go and they're welcome to return home now. if you and your chronies were wrong then so be it, you're not sticking that turd in my pocket.

You still don't get it do you? nobody can prove Iraq is making us any safer, and the "you must support the war or you hate the troops" crap is over and old news. if you're going to be ignorant at least change your rhetoric to keep up with the times, are you in a time warp or just not too bright?
 
Thank you for exposing your self completely for what you are Dude. I hope all on this board see this and know what you are.




?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
Dude

You have asked the same question twice about Clinton starting a war. Then the answer is yes. He started the attacks against Iraq. He layed the reasons out well with help from his advisors and speech writers. I guess he was too stupid to write his own speech. You would see this if you would just read his speech with an open mind.
If we hadn't overthrown Saddam and if he did give a weapon to terrorists would you have blamed Bush for not stopping him? I think this is a legitimate question.


Ransom
 
You're welcome 202, anyone who agrees with you I don't need anyway.

Overton, just what weapons would Saddam have given terrorist? if he didn't have enough weapons to save his own butt how much good could he have done anyone else? can you tell me what the hurry was to attack? now before you say " we thought " remember weapons inspectors were all over his case and Hans Blix was begging the US to hold off any attacks because they felt they were getting the job done and there were no WMD's, we had to give them time to flee Iraq, com'on. I'm content to move ahead and leave the mistakes that got us here be history, but since you brought it up....
 
Oh My! We WON! What the heck are we still doing there. President Bush has achieved every goal. He'll be remembered as the greatest war time leader in history.

OOPS! What about the towel head that started this whole thing. He just gave Li'l George the finger again today. Besides he is not as grey as li'l george.

Enough sarcasim, I honestly would like to hear what the objective is. Please explain to me how fighting and dying in Iraq is going to stop terrorism. My personal opinion matters about as much as 202's but here you go anyway .... the US will never win a war on terror by trying to define a front, it just doesn't exist. Why don't we use our superior technology and target the training facilities and safe havens for the terrorist leadership. An F18 can remove far more threats in a much more sanitary fashion than screwing around with every Muslim with a death wish. Our soldiers deserve better. As goofy as bobcatbess's idea of nuking the whole area is, it probably makes more sense than surges and equal withdrawl. At least that way we could occupy the area - establish military rule and eliminate the need to street fight an enemy no one can define.

My hope is we as Americans elect someone with a little common sense in '08 cause I fear we could loose this one big time.

RUS
 
TERRORIST/ISLAMOFACIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 911 = 0

HOW MANY BEFORE 09/11? WORLD TRADE CENTER I GUESS! OR DO YOU COUNT OAKLAHOMA?

RUS
 
The Brits burned our capital during the War of 1812. Sherman destroyed Atlanta during the Uncivil War and I know he was a terrorist. Japan destroyed our Pacific Fleet december 7th 1941 and my dad says they are terrorists. Puerto Ricans terrorists bomb New York Police 1974. Osama goons bomb WTC 1993. Moderate Democrat Timothy McVeigh bombs Murrah Federal Building Oklahoma City 1995. Osama dupes attack WTC 2001.


Ransom
 
Kenthunter, if you agree with me you're on a short but smart list. watch your back around here, if you don't make kissy faces at Bush you're an America hater.
 
Wrong again Dude. You are a troop hater. Any American that will make excuses for Murtha's coments is aginst the troops. You can not even give these men credit for the fine job they are doing in Iraq. You can't wash your hate off Dude.
In all the post you have made here on Iraq, not once have you ever given the respect these men deserve. You will not acknowledge there bravery, their honor, their patriotism. You simply wish them out of Iraq as if that is some great act of compassion to hide your disdane for the very men that keep you free. You should be ashamed!!!










?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
202 the more you talk the dumber you sound, I have deep respect for our military and those who serve. that doesn't mean I have to support the mission they've been sent on, that's just plain ignorant. I don't know how you can be a mind reader when it seems you're barely smart enough to read.
 
>Allied victories since 9/11
>
> 1. No mega-attacks
>on US, UK or Australia.
>
> 2. No WMD
>attack.
> 3. Afghanistan liberated.
>Taliban deposed.
> 4. Al-Qaida bases
>in Afghanistan destroyed. (The bad
>news is they have moved
>to Pakistan.)
> 5. Afghanistan election.
>
> 6. Iraq liberated.
>Saddam deposed and executed. Greatest
>military victory of the West
>since the end of World
>War Two in 1945.
> 7. After years
>of post-liberation fighting, Iraqi "resistance"
>still holds no territory and
>its popular support has not
>grown. Thousands of jihad fighters
>have died for nothing.
> 8. Iraq election.
>
> 9. Second Battle
>of Fallujah
> 10. The front in
>this War on Islamism has
>been moved from the streets
>of America to where it
>should be fought - in
>the streets of the Middle
>East.
> 11. Lebanon revolution.
> 12. Lebanon destroys Fatah
>al-Islam.
> 13. Libya abandons WMD
>program.
> 14. Islamists defeated in
>Somalia.
> 15. Indonesia, the world's
>most populous Muslim state, is
>now rated "Free".
> 16. Bush re-elected. Kerry
>defeated.
> 17. Blair re-elected.
> 18. Howard re-elected. Latham
>defeated.
> 19. Harper elected. Martin
>defeated. Canada back to normal.
>
> 20. Merkel elected. Schr?der
>defeated. Germany back to normal.
>
> 21. Sarkozy elected. Royal
>defeated. Chirac out. France back
>to normal. "Axis of Weasels"
>is finished.
> 22. Saddam captured, executed.
>
> 23. His sons dead.
>
> 24. Chemical Ali captured,
>sentenced to death.
> 25. Tariq Aziz captured.
>
> 26. Saddam's intelligence chief
>executed.
> 27. Saddam's chief judge
>executed.
> 28. Saddam's vice-president executed.
>
> 29. Saddam's Defence Minister
>captured, sentenced to death.
> 30. Al-Zarqawi dead (leader
>of Al-Qaeda in Iraq).
> 31. Sheikh Mansour dead
>(religious leader of Al-Qaeda in
>Iraq).
> 32. Hamad Jama al-Saedi
>captured (second in command of
>Al-Qaeda in Iraq).
> 33. Muntasir al-Jibouri captured
>(leader of Ansar al Sunnah
>in Iraq).
> 34. Muharib Abdul Latif
>al-Jubouri dead (Al-Qaeda in Iraq).
>
> 35. Khaled al-Mashhadani captured
>(Al-Qaeda in Iraq).
> 36. Abu Jurah dead
>(Al-Qaeda in Iraq).
> 37. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
>captured (the Butcher of 9/11,
>killer of Daniel Pearl).
> 38. Shamil Basayev dead
>(the Butcher of Beslan).
> 39. Hambali captured (the
>Butcher of Bali).
> 40. Azahari bin Husin
>dead (the Butcher of Bali).
>
> 41. Mustafa Nasar captured
>(the Butcher of Madrid and
>London).
> 42. Abdul Hadi al
>Iraqi captured (the Butcher of
>London).
> 43. Mohammed Atef dead
>(the Butcher of the 1998
>U.S. Embassy bombings).
> 44. Mushin Musa Matwalli
>Atwah dead (the Butcher of
>the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings).
>
> 45. Leader of Al
>Qaeda in Turkey captured (the
>Butcher of Istanbul).
> 46. Abu Ali al-Harithi
>dead (USS Cole bomber).
> 47. Tawfiq bin Attash
>captured (USS Cole bomber).
> 48. Midhat Mursi dead
>(Al Qaeda).
> 49. Abu Zubaydah captured
>(Al Qaeda).
> 50. Mohammed Jamal Khalifa
>dead (Al Qaeda).
> 51. Abu Faraj al-Libbi
>captured (Al Qaeda).
> 52. Abu Hamza Rabia
>dead (Al Qaeda).
> 53. Mullah Dadullah dead
>(Taliban butcher).
> 54. Mullah Akhtar Mohammad
>Osmani dead (Taliban).
> 55. Mullah Brother dead
>(Taliban).
> 56. Taliban defense minister
>Mullah Obaidullah captured.
> 57. Abdullah Mehsud dead
>(Taliban).
> 58. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar captured
>(Afghan Islamofascist).
> 59. Abu Hamza jailed.
>
> 60. Omar Bakri Muhammad
>expelled.
> 61. Abdullah El-Faisal expelled.
>
> 62. Palestinian intifada defeated.
>
> 63. Palestinian civil war
>begins between Fatah and Hamas.
>As Charles Johnson says: "I'm
>rooting for both sides to
>achieve their objectives."
> 64. Arafat dead.
> 65. Abu Abbas dead
>(Palestine Liberation Front).
> 66. Mahmoud Zatme dead
>(Islamic Jihad).
> 67. Yassin dead (leader
>of Hamas).
> 68. Rantissi dead (leader
>of Hamas).
>
>TERRORIST/ISLAMOFACIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE
>911 = 0
>
>
>
>?Justice consists not in being neutral
>between right and wrong, but
>in finding out the right
>and upholding it, wherever found,
>against the wrong.?
>---Theodore Roosevelt,

In my humble opinion I think this is a great start to the war on terror.


Ransom
 
Dude if you had an once of respect for the troops you would give them credit for what they have and are doing. Yet you refuse to. You can not, as I have said till I am blue in the face, have it both ways. You can not support the troops on one hand then give them no credit and go around spouting off all the things they have done wrong. You refuse to admit to any positive thing the troops have done, yet you are quick to condemn them right along with Murtha.................yea you support the troops alright.....



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
Ok , if Bush sent the troops to attack Canada would you still expect me to support them ? if I said this makes no sense bring them home does that mean I hate them? same excact thing. until you can prove the Iraq war makes one bit of difference in the safety of this nation you're blowing smoke. 3800 Americans are dead since the war started,many thousands injured some for life. can you prove more than that would have been killed if we hadn't attacked? since Iraq did nothing to us it's speculation they would have. I won't even count the thousands of dead Iraqi non comatants killed in the process because they are of no importance to you . prove it or shut up, all you have is hypothetical guesses no facts, even Petreaus won't back you up.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-07 AT 08:17PM (MST)[p]Dude

Read this. Maybe we shouln't have a military after all.

Evaluating the 2,500 Military Deaths in Iraq
The death toll in Iraq seems very large, but in fact it is relatively modest. Although we have lost 2,500 people in Iraq, that number has to be compared to deaths in peacetime military operations.

If I am right, it looks like we have lost roughly the same number of people we would expect to have lost if their had been no war at all.

We have been in Iraq just over 3 years. (2500 divided by 3 = 833) The yearly toll therefore runs about 800-900 per year.

Even when the military is not engaged in a war, it is a fairly dangerous business. During the 1950's, NON-COMBAT deaths averaged around 6,000 a year. This declined to 827 soldiers in 1998. . So the rate of soldier loss in Iraq appears to be roughly the same as that we experience during peacetime.

Furthermore, the number of soldier's lives lost under Bush appears to be little changed from past peacetime presidents. Here are the numbers lost during the first terms of these presidents: (From Red State):

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)

Of course part of this is because of the size of the military during their respective presidencies, but it is still instructive.

More here.

In Iraq, we have lost 2500, but only 1800 of those were deaths in combat. The rest (500) were what the military calls Non-hostile: car crashes, heart attacks, loading accidents, etc.

(It appears that the number of actual non-combat deaths drops during wartime, maybe since there is less training going on and more actual fighting. And, it appears that the safety record actually gets better as the operational tempo increases. So non-combat deaths declines during war.)

Here is the casualty sheet for the military for the last 20 years. There is a decline in non-combat deaths during the Clinton years, probably because the size of the military was slashed, and the operational tempo was reduced.

Here is my source for the 6,000 figure for the 1950's, it comes from Military.com:

Historians have said for a generation that 54,246 service members died during the Korean War, but according to DoD officials, those numbers have been misinterpreted. The death toll from 1950 to 1953, the time period encompassing the Korean War, is correct. But that figure includes all service members who died on active duty for any reason, not just those killed in battle. DoD changed its reporting procedures in 1993 and separated the total into 33,686 battle deaths, 2,830 nonbattle deaths in Korea, and 17,730 other deaths DoD-wide. The 1950's tally averages nearly 6,000 non-combat deaths a year. This number is contrasted with the 813 service members who died in 1998. According to DoD, improvements in training and safety contributed significantly to the drop in non-combat deaths over the years.

June 17th 2006
 
The actual count is 3795 dead Americans , 28,000 with serious wounds. the non combatant Iraqi body counts is officially 80,000 and while that might be disputed we know it's a bunch.

Some may not count the Iraqis at all and say a 1500 more dead Americans isn't the end of the world, and after all the wounded are still alive. even if you're stupid enough to think that way what do we have to show for it? if Iraq was a model country or if there was even a glimmer of hope it would be the cost may be justified, it's flat not. saying other presidents had soldiers and civilians die too doesn't make this "no big deal".
 
Some how you missed the date of the report. June 17th 2007.
I think you missed something in the report. Deaths don't increase in some wars over noncombat deaths in non war years.
So now you think I'm stupid? Is this how you persuade opponents?


Stupid
 
No I don't think you're stupid, and you're a good sport, just on the wrong page, the date on your deal is 2006. but some of your buds here are stupid without doubt.

I don't think anyone persuades anyone here, we're all bull headed. it's just a sparing match for kicks.
 
I'll buy that. We probably all mean well it's just that we don't agree. Some times the verbiage is surprising to me. My granny,my mom was a softy, would have had me behind the barn if I spoke like some of you guys write.


Ransom


46f5141301e5050e.jpg
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_9231.jpeg
59BD3FE1-26FF-4978-A6BC-1EB2FA6B3F04.jpeg
Lance 2023-2.jpg
IMG_3761.PNG
IMG_0830 (1).PNG
IMG_3612.JPG
IMG_5372.jpeg
747BD813-3C0E-4864-BC60-8FCB69ADE6EB.png
VideoCapture_20240803-092410.jpg
2018-09-01 13.07.33.jpg
732CBD73-3706-42EE-B729-8DE10612F57F.jpeg
IMG_0597.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom