Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Democrats Test Themes for `06 and `08
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ok2bclever" data-source="post: 74306" data-attributes="member: 1356"><p>Just to be sure, as the figure was 30,000 Iraqi dead since bush invaded (doesn't count what the bad guys have done) did you mean how many before we leave? <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/lol.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Lol :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></p><p></p><p>If the decision to invade is <em>now </em>(rather than WMD) going to hinge on how many are killed in another country do we go by percentages or just physical totals and exactly what manner of death do we use as the yardstick?</p><p></p><p>It would appear Africa would qualify ahead of Iraq possibly for any yardstick.</p><p></p><p>But then Russia and China probably are up there also and who really knows how many North Korea or Iran, etc are actually doing away with.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps we should just invade them all to play safe.</p><p></p><p>There is a huge difference between trying to share the responsibility to police the worst of the world as part of an officially world recognized organization and playing solo decider of who gets invaded and why.</p><p></p><p>bush crossed a line.</p><p></p><p>That was why he had to use a lie to get the country to agree to it.</p><p></p><p>He stuck to the lie months and months after it became clear, friend<em>rom his own investigators</em> that it was a lie.</p><p></p><p>Now, we went in because it was the morally right thing to do.</p><p></p><p>What a crock.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ok2bclever, post: 74306, member: 1356"] Just to be sure, as the figure was 30,000 Iraqi dead since bush invaded (doesn't count what the bad guys have done) did you mean how many before we leave? :lol: If the decision to invade is [I]now [/I](rather than WMD) going to hinge on how many are killed in another country do we go by percentages or just physical totals and exactly what manner of death do we use as the yardstick? It would appear Africa would qualify ahead of Iraq possibly for any yardstick. But then Russia and China probably are up there also and who really knows how many North Korea or Iran, etc are actually doing away with. Perhaps we should just invade them all to play safe. There is a huge difference between trying to share the responsibility to police the worst of the world as part of an officially world recognized organization and playing solo decider of who gets invaded and why. bush crossed a line. That was why he had to use a lie to get the country to agree to it. He stuck to the lie months and months after it became clear, friend[I]rom his own investigators[/I] that it was a lie. Now, we went in because it was the morally right thing to do. What a crock. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Democrats Test Themes for `06 and `08
Top