Thread: How Many US Troop Deaths Are Too Many?

How many more US troops have to die for a mistake that was not in the national security interest of the US and has indeed increased the threat of terror? When Americans sign up for the military, their job discription is to defend the constitution and their country, not carry out wars of aggression for the imperialists in Washington. Its time to end this madness. Unfortunetley, the liberal media is still arguing against withdraw in reporting and commentary, as they did during the Vietnam War.

None have died for a mistake that wasn't in the national security interest.

You're premise is false, so you conclusions aren't valid.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

None have died for a mistake that wasn't in the national security interest.

You're premise is false, so you conclusions aren't valid.

Excuse me for my intollerance of your comment, but WHERE THE FUCK WAS THE THREAT?

Originally Posted by Horhey

Excuse me for my intollerance of your comment, but WHERE THE FUCK WAS THE THREAT?

I circled it for you......in red.....see it?

Originally Posted by Sparta

I circled it for you......in red.....see it?

Oh ok, so Iran is the threat now? I hope I dont start losing sleep becouse of this.

Originally Posted by Horhey

Oh ok, so Iran is the threat now? I hope I dont start losing sleep becouse of this.

Me too, that would be bad. Iran has always been the threat. I'm sure that the definition of 'threat' would be considered loose to you but it's a threat non the less, as it has been.

threat (thrĕt)
n.
An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
An indication of impending danger or harm.
One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

Originally Posted by Sparta

Me too, that would be bad. Iran has always been the threat. I'm sure that the definition of 'threat' would be considered loose to you but it's a threat non the less, as it has been.

threat (thrĕt)
n.
An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
An indication of impending danger or harm.
One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

Oh yea, Iran would deffinetley commit suicide by attacking the US. They would actually be justified in attacking the US if the Bush doctrine of preventive war was legal. So would Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Georgia, Somalia, Haiti, and Syria.

Originally Posted by Horhey

Oh yea, Iran would deffinetley commit suicide by attacking the US. They would actually be justified in attacking the US if the Bush doctrine of preventive war was legal. So would Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Georgia, Somalia, Haiti, and Syria.

They already are attacking, where have you been?


U.S. IS DETAINING IRANIANS CAUGHT IN RAIDS IN IRAQ


*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information. December 25, 2006, Monday
By JAMES GLANZ AND SABRINA TAVERNISE; DAVID E. SANGER AND MICHAEL R. GORDON CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM WASHINGTON, AND NAZILA FATHI FROM TEHRAN. (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 6, 1617 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials...
U.S. IS DETAINING IRANIANS CAUGHT IN RAIDS IN IRAQ - The New York Times

Originally Posted by Sparta

They already are attacking, where have you been?


U.S. IS DETAINING IRANIANS CAUGHT IN RAIDS IN IRAQ


*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information. December 25, 2006, Monday
By JAMES GLANZ AND SABRINA TAVERNISE; DAVID E. SANGER AND MICHAEL R. GORDON CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM WASHINGTON, AND NAZILA FATHI FROM TEHRAN. (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 6, 1617 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials...
U.S. IS DETAINING IRANIANS CAUGHT IN RAIDS IN IRAQ - The New York Times

Then why were they released 2 days later if they were conducting attacks?

Originally Posted by Horhey

Then why were they released 2 days later if they were conducting attacks?

Good question. The answer is bad policy. They were put in the charge of Iraqi officails who decided to give them back. So much for the 'puppet government' theory.