It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines
to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to
call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the
votes in Florida!!!!
BWAHHAAAAAA!
[[[smoke]]]
Apr-03-2004 05:48
St_Andrew
I <3 NYC
Registered: May 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
quote:
Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
When they marched into Kuwait and threatened the worlds oil supply.
When they threatened the worlds oil supply,The US jumped and stopped it.
yeah sure that was gulf war ONE, what about this one!?
Apr-03-2004 10:38
arctic
Teh Pwn
Registered: Oct 2002
Location: Australia
quote:
Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
When they marched into Kuwait and threatened the worlds oil supply.
When they threatened the worlds oil supply,The US jumped and stopped it.
Answering the question might be a good start. He didn't ask whether they threatened the world's oil supply, but rather whether Iraq had ever attacked the US itself.
Incidentally, are you suggesting that Kuwait is the sole source of oil in the world today?
___________________
Currently Whoring:
Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
CPU - So It Begins
Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
Apr-03-2004 10:41
igottaknow
PerfectTeeth R4 Dinosaurs
Registered: Feb 2001
Location: The Future
quote:
Originally posted by Cal
Ok explain this to me. At the top is says:
Subject: Worst president in history?
And it ends with: Our military is GREAT!
Eh?
It was originally posted in the Rush Limbaugh forum. Does that answer your question?
I remember listening to some right wing fascist on Fox News make the same argument about Iraq, that the casualty figures are very low, therefore the war is OK. Comparing the murder rate in Detroit to the US casualty rate in Iraq is false logic of the worst kind.
Firstly the USA has far fewer troops in Iraq than the population of Detroit and the number of US military personnel is far few than previous wars meaning the casualty figures have to be less because their are less soldiers to be attacked. Which means the percentage chance of getting killed or wounded if you are a US serviceperson is far greater than walking in the 'hood in Detroit.
I dont know the actual numbers, But lets say there are 100,000 soldiers in Iraq. Most of those would be non-combat personnel so they are not in combat operations. Further many of those soldiers would be located in the areas in Iraq without violence such as northern Iraq near the Kurdish territories.
But if you are not one of those lucky GI's and you get posted to combat operations in a violent area of Iraq like Fallujah your percentage chance of getting wounded or killed would be fairly good.
I would imagine, the chance of getting injured or killed in a combat unit would be far higher than the chance of getting in a car accident for example.
Apr-05-2004 14:11
Yoepus
Neo-condimist
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Ketchup fields, Texas
quote:
Originally posted by igottaknow
It was originally posted in the Rush Limbaugh forum. Does that answer your question?
and you would know this how?
I'm on to you igottaknow! I'm on to you!
___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!
