 | | Re: We Should've Listened to Dick Cheney
|
|
(...) Not one death is "acceptable" (YOUR word, not mine). (...) Yes. What I mean is: if 10 innocents are killed today, and 12 tomorrow, then that doesn't mean we are suddenly "losing". And if there are only 2 the following day, we are not suddenly (...) (17 years ago, 17-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We Should've Listened to Dick Cheney
|
|
(...) Averages are seldom a good measure of populations. Mind you, as the declining population approaches 1, they get a lot better. Cheers Richie Dulin (17 years ago, 17-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We Should've Listened to Dick Cheney
|
|
(...) Hmmm, I have to admit I'm a little confused here. The death of innocents shows the US is winning, but actually keeping count of those deaths is what those terrorists want. Could you clarify something for me: is the death of innocents a good or (...) (17 years ago, 17-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We Should've Listened to Dick Cheney
|
|
(...) So you'd consider ANY body count "acceptable" in order to "win" this military action? And do you think the average Iraqi would have the same answer to that question as you do? ROSCO (17 years ago, 17-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We Should've Listened to Dick Cheney
|
|
(...) We are winning because we are taking control of areas that once weren't under control. Little by little the terrorists are being squeezed out. Winning or losing isn't based on the daily body count. This is precisely the mindset and rationale (...) (17 years ago, 17-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We Should've Listened to Dick Cheney
|
|
(...) So the more the US wins, the more innocents die? Cheers Richie Dulin (17 years ago, 17-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We Should've Listened to Dick Cheney
|
|
(...) Ahh, thanks for dusting off and bringing the Q word into the discussion! If you think that any of the homicide bombers over the years would have reconsidered their actions because there had been broad support for the invasion of Iraq, you are (...) (17 years ago, 17-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We Should've Listened to Dick Cheney
|
|
(...) The difference is that Cheney's prediction in 1994 was *exactly* correct. Current events clearly show that invading Iraq without broad support from our allies resulted in a quagmire. Are you saying that in 2003 Cheney was so certain of his (...) (17 years ago, 17-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We Should've Listened to Dick Cheney
|
|
Yes, but what in the WORLD changed Cheney's mind? To date, there really hasn't been any evidence whatsoever that has surfaced that would explain his about-face on the issue. (and before you tell me "we don't know all the facts", (...) (17 years ago, 16-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We Should've Listened to Dick Cheney
|
|
(...) I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years. Two years later we ourselves made flights. This demonstration of my impotence as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have distrusted (...) (17 years ago, 16-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
