1,000 soldiers killed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5911852/

1,000 soldiers killed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5911852/

It's an amazingly low number in the historic context of war. If we have the will to see this through, I expect that 10,000 or more Americans soldiers will die in the Middle East over the next decade and we'll spend nearly a trillion dollars. If we don't have the will to fight for a decade, take thousands of casualities, and pay the bills then I guess we need to take the Pat Buchanan approach. Build a fence, expel all the foreigners, and live in a fortress. I found McCain's speech pretty persuasive--there was no safe status-quo to maintain.

It's an amazingly low number in the historic context of war. If we have the will to see this through, I expect that 10,000 or more Americans soldiers will die in the Middle East over the next decade and we'll spend nearly a trillion dollars. If we don't have the will to fight for a decade, take thousands of casualities, and pay the bills then I guess we need to take the Pat Buchanan approach. Build a fence, expel all the foreigners, and live in a fortress. I found McCain's speech pretty persuasive--there was no safe status-quo to maintain.

I like the Buchanan approach.

It's an amazingly low number in the historic context of war. If we have the will to see this through, I expect that 10,000 or more Americans soldiers will die in the Middle East over the next decade and we'll spend nearly a trillion dollars. If we don't have the will to fight for a decade, take thousands of casualities, and pay the bills then I guess we need to take the Pat Buchanan approach. Build a fence, expel all the foreigners, and live in a fortress. I found McCain's speech pretty persuasive--there was no safe status-quo to maintain.

No matter how it's spun, many Americans are no longer convinced that the war in Iraq is an integral part of a war on terror because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

A war on terror, to be successful, needs to be waged on many fronts, not simply through the exercise of military might. Is it to be all stick and no carrot? And, although the Bush Administration has done its best to discredit diplomacy, it isn't a dirty word.

Thanks to Cheney's privatization of the military, which has personally enriched him (and still is) and made him a millionaire many times over, we can cavalierly enter into war without counting the full number of Americans "over there."

One can definitively say that war in Iraq was a reckless and convenient way for W to extend the war on terrorism into a war that has and will make billions for his ultra-rich friends and family. The Bush Administration is willing to sacrifice the lives of the average American in Iraq because so few of them have actually fought in a war.

Two more numbers.

138 : The number of killed when George Bush made his Mission Accomplished speech
797: The number of deaths since George Bush told the insurrgents to "Bring it on."

10,000 or more Americans soldiers will die in the Middle East over the next decade and we'll spend nearly a trillion dollars.That's not the bill of goods sold to the American people.

And I notice you didn't say whether we will have accomplished anything of worth after that tremendous investment.

That's not the bill of goods sold to the American people.

And I notice you didn't say whether we will have accomplished anything of worth after that tremendous investment.

The Bush adminstration did a terrible job of telling the public what he potential cost of the war would be. I also agree that there's no way to know if this venture will be successful. I don't have the assurance that God is on our side. At this point it's much easier to guarantee failure by bailing out than to pay the price for an unknown chance at success. Such is war. I think that McCain made some very good points saying that Saddam's regime without effective sanctions was unacceptable, and only U.S. military action was going to change it.

I think that McCain made some very good points saying that Saddam's regime without effective sanctions was unacceptable, and only U.S. military action was going to change it.

Saddam was in a box. We only took him on because we KNEW he was WEAK.

It turns out W. was right in 2000. McCain is crazy. Saddam doesn't have WMDs because the sanctions were effective.

Saddam was in a box. We only took him on because we KNEW he was WEAK.

It turns out W. was right in 2000. McCain is crazy. Saddam doesn't have WMDs because the sanctions were effective.


Let's not forget that the UN inspectors' reports were completely vindicated. If Bush would have kept the pressure up and allowed the inspectors to continue their investigation we would have found out to a reasonable certainty that Saddam was not a threat to anyone but his own people. We would have saved 1,000 of our troops (many more thousands wounded and maimed), $200 billion, to date, in a recession economy, Saddam would have continued to be contained, and we would have ample military resources available to win the war against the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan that still have not been rounded up. Right now no one can argue that we as Americans are more safe now that Saddam is in a cell. Hey great for the Shia. Whoopee. We now know he did not have the capability to harm anyone a great deal. I remember having the distinct impression that Bush wanted those inspectors out of there before they undermined his entire argument for the invasion. Do ya think?

This war ran up the deficit in a recession economy, over-extended our military and was ineffective in increasing our security and it can reasonably be argued that it in fact made us less safe by increasing anti-american enmity throughout the region thus swelling the ranks of would be terrorists.

That kids is a BAD DECISION. There was no clear compelling intelligence. There were no "solid grounds for war." It was entirely elective and based on a crusading ideology. A freaking misguided US propogated DOMINO THEORY of spreading Democracy to bunch of people who don't understand it at the point of a gun. (sound familiar?) And its burdon falls on the shoulder of one man. George Bush. Kerry needs to point his finger at Bush during the debates and make it clear. That man, and only that man, George Bush is responsible for this whole mess. Those thousand graves should be shoved in GWB's face over and over. Let him sleep with that.

Let's not forget that the UN inspectors' reports were completely vindicated.



How so? Are you saying that Saddam was meeting his obligations under the various U.N. resolutions? Had he disarmed in the manner that he was required to?