Monday, 24 March 2008

4000 Up

When the White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked for a reaction to the death toll for U.S. troops in Iraq reaching 2,500, he responded: “It’s just a number.”
I wonder if he will be quite so keen to shrug it off now that now it has reached 'just' 4,000? So what have those 4000 dead Americans actually died for?

Did you find any Weapons of Mass Destruction? No.
Did you find Osama bin Laden? No.
Did you stop Terrorism around the World? No
Did the invasion make the world any safer? No.
Is America safer? No.
Is the Middle East a safer place? No.
Are the Iraqi people still dying in their droves? Yes.
Have you made a bad situation even worse? Yes.
Has Americas international standing improved? No.
Is it going be over soon? No.
Was it used as a recruitment campaign by Al-Qaeda? Yes.

Lucky it is just 4000 dead because otherwise it might be thought of as a bit of a catastrophe all around don't you think Mr Snow?.

14 comments:

annie said...

to quote dick cheney: "So"

just imagine how many lives have been affected by the meaningless deaths of 4000 soldiers.it's enough to make a grown woman cry. and i do.

ruth said...

Horrific - The Rude Pundit has a haiku type poem about it. It's rather shocking.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-to-celebrate-four-thousandth-to-die.html

Cheezy said...

As long as we're quoting great statemen about this matter, here's ol' Rummy's considered take on it:

"Stuff happens".

(Yeah, but 'stuff' is a bit less likely to happen if you're rich or the son of a politician, isn't it?).

Anonymous said...

Lucy,

The no list is long and meaningful. There is a yes list as well.

- got rid of saddam
- secured saudi arabia and kuwait
- killed lots of terrorists

Ideal with U.S. military personnel every day. "Most" say they are doing a good thing. All have regrets, but "most" think the overall loss is justified by the gains.

Q

PS - wow, there is a conservative detector on the word check... zpzummmak

Cheezy said...

Mmmmm, what wouldn't we give to swap those yes's and no's around, eh?...

Stephen said...

There's another yes list, q.

-made Iraq a terrorist hotbed where there were none before.
-created a civil war in Iraq
-led to the death of 4000 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
-increased hostility toward the US in the middle east and around the world.

And I always find it interesting that many conservatives support a war that has nothing to do with principled conservatism.

Anonymous said...

Stephen,

Your yeses are actually part of the rather long no list... I was just trying to point out that like everything else, there are some gains. I would not try to argue the up side approaches the downside. But there is an upside.

Q

Anonymous said...

Stephen,

Also, there were terrorists in Iraq before and it could be argued that the civil war (which is a matter of opinion) was under kept under wraps by the VICIOUS force applied by Saddam on all minorities. Remember the poison gas attack Saddam used on the Kurds?

Q
PS - word verification = dsqpnqjw (that is a lot for me to type without screwing up...)

Anonymous said...

Stephen,

Wow. Your note really packed a punch. Short but loaded. As I reread I keep finding gemstones...

Does supporting a war using "principled conservatism" equal to "principled war"?

Q

Anonymous said...

Stephen,

Wow. Your note really packed a punch. Short but loaded. As I reread I keep finding gemstones...

Does supporting a war using "principled conservatism" equal to "principled war"?

Q

Lucy said...

Of course you are right stephen and Q's list leads to even more awkward questions such as why Saddam, why then, why not let the Weapons Inspectors finish the job?

Anonymous said...

Lucy,

I thought the weapons inspectors had gotten extensions 10 years in a row and Saddam just threw them out again inspite of U.S. sabre rattling.

Why Saddam? Because he wouldn't let the U.S. chase bad guys that tried to hide in Iraq. Because he was a threat to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Because many advisors thought the Iraqi people would be receptive to America getting rid of Saddam.

Why then? Because of 9/11 and the frustration and anger abounding in the U.S.

Q

Lucy said...

The US & UK told the UN weapons inspectors to get out. Blair tried to make it sound as if Saddam had kicked them out but Blix & Elbaradei stopped him short and said it was the UK & US who told them to get out.

I have read many reports including one from the US military and reported on almost every media outlet that stated there was no link between Saddam and Al queada. The only link was with Saddam and some Palestinian groups who he gave money to, to support the families of suicide bombers.

annie said...

so, the solution to frustration and anger is to invade a country that had nothing to do with sept. 11th? really?