Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the death toll of american soldiers in iraq since 2003 is close to 4000.how many more americans have to lose their lives until george w.bush and dick chaney get a clue ?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,279 posts, read 54,055,448 times
Reputation: 40566
Quote:
Originally Posted by james203
the death toll of american soldiers in iraq since 2003 is close to 4000.how many more americans have to lose their lives until george w.bush and dick chaney get a clue ?
Sad to say don't think any number would give them a clue, they're blinded by pig-headed ideolugy and numbers mean little to them. If GWB really gave a rat's behind about these men and women he wouldn't have gone on vacation after FINALLY admitting a new plan was needed
Bush is doing what he's told.
Don't underestimate Cheney, he's smart and clever. The things he does are not due to lack of insight. He knows what he is doing. He also believes in total secrecy for his decisions. That's the terrible part. Neither Bush, nor Cheney, give a rat's behind about the toll this war is taking on American troops. It's tragic to have so many dead and well over 22,000 wounded.
the death toll of american soldiers in iraq since 2003 is close to 4000.how many more americans have to lose their lives until george w.bush and dick chaney get a clue ?
Between 1941 and 1945 the USA had 407,300 military deaths. While 1 is too many, let's put it in perspective.
And the actual number of US deaths in Iraq since March 2003 up to June 2007 is 3538. This number includes both hostile and non-hostile deaths (i.e. accidents, illness etc)
Far as George and Dick getting a clue? I'm not happy with them but those troops wouldn't be there unless congress agreed to it. So there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,279 posts, read 54,055,448 times
Reputation: 40566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davart
Far as George and Dick getting a clue? I'm not happy with them but those troops wouldn't be there unless congress agreed to it. So there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle.
Perspective? I want to know where the perspective was back in November when the Shrub FINALLY admitted we needed a new plan in Iraq and then proceeded to go on vacation while people remained in harm's way under his now admitted ineffective plan.
Until I hear a convincing argument otherwise, and I really don't believe one exists, I can only consider his lack of action to be one thing: INEXCUSABLE
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,279 posts, read 54,055,448 times
Reputation: 40566
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
Bush's Strategy in Iraq -
1. Stay the Course
2. They Stand Up, We Stand Down
3. Stay the Course (Again)
4. New Way Forward
5. Surge
6. Can't Wait to get the New Slogan. 21st Century Warfare, Kindergarten Style.
Maybe besides age and country of birth we should add a new requirement to be president?
You must be able to tell the difference between a plan and a sound bite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.