Replies

"Nice propagandistic spin."

I see you try to label FACTS as spin.
Why must you attempt to do so?

"Splitting the difference between combat and noncombat deaths. How absurd."

Facts are absurd to you, eh? How interesting.

"For all your "respect" for the troops, you simply parrot the goooberment line."

Of course I 'parrot' this line ITS TRUE! To bad you don't see that for what it is worth.

"They died in a war zone."

What I said doesn't dispute that. Do you honestly think that every soldier in Iraq today takes part in combat? FFS dude THINK will ya!

"If the govt classifies their death as non combat deaths, is it to screw them out of their death benefits. "

False premise there sir, they are classified as WHAT THEY ARE. Its a fact thing, not surprising you dismiss that.

Accepting 687 on the terms that Saddam would actually comply......YUP Iraq was the biggest mistake HUH? Seems you forget this started LONG ago and you attempt to put it all in a box that supposedly started in 2003.

Your attempt to keep combat and non combat deaths combined shows that the ONLY thing you care about is a number of dead to politicize to push your ideological agenda. If this was not true you would simply have agreed with the truth I posed to you and accepted the facts for what they are. Not all the over 2000 deaths were in combat. This is a simple fact. Accept it for what it is and stop trying to politicize soldiers dying for your anti war ideology.

You claim this is such a mistake. OK you oppose the action. I ask you to qualify the opposition with alternative solution that was not tried in the 12 years preceeding it.
Lets see you pose your supposed alternatives, I do not think you can or will.

I think you oppose war on an ideological level ( and you oppose the US on this and not the terrorists as you say nothing about them) and I think that you fail to see that 12 YEARS of talking diplomacy FAILED. Not due to the USA but indeed due to Saddams choices. There was no other options remaining which is why Bill Clinton said to hell with inspections ( as the farce they always were) and made "Regime Change" the USA POLICY. He said it, but he wouldn't DO IT. He was HAILED for SAYING it and you oppose DOING IT. The final step in diplomacy (relationship between parties) is WAR. Clinton was scared to alienate the liberal base of the Democratic power so he would SAY it but he wouldn't DO it. W did it and its ABOUT DAMN TIME. Should have been done a long time ago.

More time was tried. Waiting him out was tried, incentives were tried,sanctions were tried, harsh language was tried ( 1441 was the last effort at tough language). Limited strikes were tried ( operation desert fox), even ignoring it all together was tried.

I offere to you sir, that you cannot offer any alternative to regime change by force. ALL you can offer is that Saddam and his actions should have been IGNORED.

Soldiers died in 1991, sir, and to allow Saddam to just ignore the agreement they fought and died for is, INDEED, a lack of respect for what they did from 1990 to 2003. You spit on their actions when you claim that Saddam should not have been held to account for his LACK OF ABIDING BY his terms of surrender. This is what you leave out when you form a box that started in 2003.

Prove me wrong sir, offer up alternatives that WERE NOT TRIED. Pose to me here, how you offer that Saddam be held to account for lack of compliance with the agreement HE ACCEPTED April 6 1991.
I eagerly await your response. Though I will not hold my breath.