You guys must have missed all the bombs that went off at mosques, markets, and police stations. Those IEDs didn't explode only on US vehicles, and the bomb blasts didn't magically miss civilians nearby. Easily 80% or more of the civilians killed were due to the civil war and militia violence. I know you like to hate America, but the reality flies in the face of that.
Right, as part of the 'no-fly-zone'. So basically your argument is that we shouldn't have a no fly zone because we have a no fly zone. barfo
Even if you say that last bit in jest, it is a very poor form to say that about people who just disagree with what you're saying. I thought we had finally gotten over the "why do you hate America" BS a few years ago when people realized disagreeing with someones political views on something doesn't mean they hate American. But I guess you missed that change. And if you meant it to be funny, use green so we know you're being sarcastic.
Here's an article from Reuters that addresses the massive number of civilian deaths in Iraq due to suicide attacks: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/02/01/idUSCOL139006._CH_.2400 Assuming those two months are typical, do the math. It comes out to 23,406 deaths a year. Multiply that figure by any number of years you wish, and you'll start getting an idea of how many Iraqis died at the hands of their own people.
The notion of a no fly zone where there are no enemy planes left to attack civilians makes it a paradox. Which is why obama's coalition is falling apart.
Denny's general position over the years has been that if you disagree with the Republicans, you're a traitor (providing aid and comfort to the enemy) or you hate America.
You spent a lot of time, in BBF days, saying that anyone who disagreed with the President in war time was a traitor, for giving comfort to the enemy. I notice a startling lack of that from you these days, with a new, non-Republican President. Of course, FOX News also accused anyone who criticized Bush of being a traitor, though were perfectly happy to rip into Clinton during armed conflict in Kosovo and now into Obama. You conservatives have different rules depending on who's in power.
You "assume" that the high is typical? LaMarcus Aldridge scored a high of 42 points against the Bulls. Assuming this is typical, he has scored 3,124 total points this season. This puts Aldridge at the third most points EVER scored in an NBA season. And still with 11 games to go. Again, assuming this TYPICAL production, he has a really good shot at getting into second place all time.
Hey, I won't quibble. Reduce both of those monthly figures by 10% and you'd still end up with over 100,000 civilian deaths in 5 years of war.
I felt, and still do, that opposing the war and making shit up, as was done, did real damage to the war effort and made it last a lot longer than it needed to. The outright hatred spewed by the anti-war left discouraged people from enlisting, encouraged universities to kick ROTC off campuses, and is the kind of propaganda that the Jane Fondas and Tokyo Roses use in psy-ops against our troops. A not-too-subtle difference between that and urging people to back Bush. But it sure did seem that the left's interest was moreso in damaging Bush's presidency and legacy than in actually being opposed to war. Heck, 10,000 people marched against war in those days, where are they when Obama takes us to war? And I think Clinton was smart for going to NATO instead of the UN, to do the Kosovo thing. Unlike Bush's strategy which was to go through the UN.
Absolutely. The Left is so transparent it's ridiculous. I'll never forget how NOW clammed up and disappeared during the entire Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. It was the classic example of an older man with lots of power taking advantage of a young subordinate female, and yet the feminists didn't say a peep--because Clinton was their man.
