Comments on: U.N.: 3,709 Iraqis Killed In October

Highest Monthly Civilian Toll Since War Started; Bush, Al-Maliki To Meet Next Week

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. As a hypothetical, I can say, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country who can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.

[rsoxfan1123]

"But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite)."
Posted by bushrocks1 at 03:10 PM : Nov 22, 2006

I think this says a lot about your credibility, bushrocks1.

[rsoxfan1123]

bushrocks1-you've been copy pasting this same thing for two days straight. knock it off, it's not that good.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. As a hypothetical, I can say, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country who can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.

[patriotic9]

Atleast UN is there to tell us how many Iraqis are getting killed.Nobody is there to tell us how many of our soldiers are getting killed every day and how many of our soldiers have been killed so far.We all know that our media and govt hide truth about U.S casualties in Iraq.When JILL CAROL was captured,she was told by her captors that ONLY ONE INSURGENT GROUP ALQAEDA IN IRAQ has killed 40,000 U.S soldiers so far and as an evidence, she was shown videos of IEDs blowing up MILITARY VEHICLES.When the Military vehicles made up of thick Iron get shrattered into pieces how come the troops sitting inside the vehicles escape unharmed.I am more concerned about our men and women in uniforms then the IRAQIs.Our Military is not trained to fight this UNCONVENTIONAL WAR in which there is no FRONTLINE and the enemies DON'T WEAR MILITARY UNIFORM.When a woman carrying a 4 months old child can blow herself up to kill U.S sodiers,who can our GIs trust there.For the NEW INSURGENTS,it's so easy to get trained.They join IRAQI SECURITY FORCES to get trained on our tax money and use our weapons to kill our soldiers.
It was wrong for us to go to IRAQ without understanding their culture and get screwed in a way which is IRREVERSIBLE.

[diverinnl]

Thanks pakaal, 22% is pretty large when you consider the number of member nations.

How is the percentage of our share calculated? By our GDP as a percentage of the world total GDP? Just curios.

[pakaal]

rsoxfan1123 said "not all of us were responsible for the things bush said and did."

Very true. Let's all remember that in 2008, and make sure we elect a leader who won't humiliate the United States and start wars worldwide.

BTW, diverinnl, the US pays 22% of the UNs operating cost - don't know how you define "huge" but I figured I'd give an actual percentage....

[rsoxfan1123]

and they owe us an apology for the oil for food scandal. mistakes all around I guess.

[rsoxfan1123]

yes. but not all of us were responsible for the things bush said and did. I feel like we owe the UN an apology anway. After all, they WERE right about the WMD.

[clestes-2009]

vet999999, I have no fear of saying any of this. It is all true for one thing and I still have freedom of speech for another.

Not true about only Saddam knowing. The UN has been watching Iraq carefully for at least 10 years and if you think there could have been a civil war going on and they not know it, think again. And if you think I am basing my opinion on a "few disgruntled generals" guess again. There is plenty of press that all state the same thing. And not just American press either, check out Britain, Australia opinions.

You can believe what you want, but the facts support everything I have said.

[diverinnl]

True, I just hate the feeling that Americans will have to kiss @#$. It's not who we are as a people. Do you know what I mean?

[rsoxfan1123]

a new president would be able to apologize to the UN for what bush did without personally accepting blame, except in a general sense. sort of "I can't help what the guy before me did, I apologize anyway, now let's start over". It's in the UN's best interests to stay with us.

[diverinnl]

AMEN

[rsoxfan1123]

thank God.

[diverinnl]

MY BAD!!! The 22nd amendment limiting Presidential terms to two was ratified in 1951 after Truman did three terms. I stand corrected.

[rsoxfan1123]

Really? I didn't know a president could run a third term. are you sure?

[diverinnl]

Oh, we pay a HUGE percentage of the UN but that means nothing to France, Russia, Germany, etc. and why should it? They were against the idea of invading Iraq in the first place. They will feel they hold the moral high ground if Bush begs for help and mercy.

[diverinnl]

If he can get us to declare war on North Korea, Bush can pull the old third term out of the constitution. He's got 18 months left to "Git-R-Done!"

[rsoxfan1123]

we still pay the lion's share of UN bills, I think.

[rsoxfan1123]

a new president will have to do it apologetically for bush.