Clinton or Bush

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 20 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]393436[/snapback]</div>

Errrr...thanks for playing...you're the one claiming you have the data so support your claims or withdrawl them. Your post clearly, to me at least, suggests total military deaths during Clinton's 8 years compared to only deaths in Iraq during Bush's 6.....

If you're unable to substantiate your claims then they are mute and must be assumed false and/or lies.

 

Ok, since you can't/won't or are afraid to do it yourself I did a quick google.

If you just throw in Operation Enduring Freedom casualties you bring the total military deaths under Bush up to 3468. I'm still searching for deaths from other military actions as well as deaths in training and such...it's not that easy to find.

Ok, since you can't/won't or are afraid to do it yourself I did a quick google.

If you just throw in Operation Enduring Freedom casualties you bring the total military deaths under Bush up to 3468. I'm still searching for deaths from other military actions as well as deaths in training and such...it's not that easy to find.

http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASU...ATE_OEF_OIF.pdf

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 20 2007, 02:34 PM) [snapback]393456[/snapback]</div>

Again, BS response...accidental military deaths have been fairly stable for many years...if we weren't at war during the Bush era he'd have just as many accidental deaths during his watch as Clinton did. Unless you're saying "since they're going to die anyway we might as well send them to war to die".

That said, the numbers for Bush hugely exceed the entire Clinton era. I still can't find numbers for 2004-present, but I did find a comparison of Bush through 2004 (5187) vs Clinton's entire presidency(4,417-I'll use your number there):
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/003564.html

There have been at least 1500 more deaths in Iraq alone since 2004 plus the accidental deaths and the deaths in Afganistan and elsewhere. So let's conservatively assume 2000 deaths more....that's nearly twice as many deaths during Bush's era than Clinton's and he's got another 2 years to continue the senseless slaughter of our brave young men.

Got any more stats you wanna throw out there?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 20 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]393479[/snapback]</div>

Do you have to take a drink of the Kool-aid every day or is it just a once monthly dosing?

1)Dems have plenty of "testosterone"...you only want a binding agreement so when things go toe-up in Iraq you can blame the dems instead of accepting the responsibility for failure yourselves. The non-binding agreement is to make the point that there is general dissatisfaction and a double statement that all the "political capital" Bush thought he had has now been spent...and then some. No logical democrat wants the troops pulled immediately. That would be a disaster and you know it and I know it...a disaster of Bush's initiation, but a disaster none-the-less.

2)This didn't start b/c our president 8 years ago was getting a 'hummer'...it started well before that and we've covered the various mistakes made by both presidents and both of their intelligence agencies in the past that permitted the events of 9/11. The one thing that is absolutely agreed upon by both parties and the words spoken by "W" himself is that the terror acts of 9/11 had nothing, zilch, nada to do with Iraq. You have no stance there at all...not one leg to stand on...unless you wanna try to prop yourself up on that WMD crutch...good luck there.

3)Finally....the terrorist will get an Iraq free of US troops...be it in a year or in 10 years...they'll get it. And we won't leave a stable Iraqi gov't in place no matter how many times the President tries to suggest we will. I almost hope the republicans get control back just so the failure will be plain to see as their sole responsibility. If it happens under a democratic regime the repubs will say "see, you pulled out the troops and look what happened." You guys created this catastrophe and there's no way it will end well...it's just going to be a marketing campaign to see who's better at pointing fingers....the republicans usually win those.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 20 2007, 03:22 PM) [snapback]393494[/snapback]</div>

As if you don't know! :lol:

And that is, ultimately, the best thing the repubs can hope for. The country goes into chaos, civilians die by the droves as factional fighting takes over, the entire middle east goes into an uproar and the republicans sit back and say "see, we had everything under control". The reality is that you've already pulled all but one control rod out of a nuclear reactor and you're desperately struggling to keep that one in place so the whole thing doesn't achieve critical mass. The democrats are aware of that and want to keep that control rod in place too while we struggle to find some way to correct the bungling that the Bush administration got us into in the first place. The problem is, I just don't think there is such a solution unless a truely charismatic and powerful leader within Iraq itself and chosen by the Iraqi people rises to the surface....we killed off the one that was there already so it's hard to know if someone with that kind of ability exists.

So, we can do a couple things:
1)try to get rid of some of the nuclear material before losing the last control rod so that the ensuing 'explosion' is relatively minimal. That seems to be what's being attempted now, but we may be inadvertantly adding to the reactor rather than taking away.

2)Just say "she's gonna blow either way", pull the troops, cut our own losses and let what happens happen. It'll be a huge genocidal catastrophy, Iraq will plunge into severe chaos and probably come under complete control of a Taliban-like group who'll eventually foster and support terror groups out of Iraq where none existed before.

3)And probably the hardest of all....appeal desperately to the other members of the arabic nations to assist in resolving the situation. We need their support as untasteful as that will be to many Americans. With their help it's likely that the inter-sect fighting can be calmed. Pressure can be put on those nations providing weapons and support to the insurgents...in return, of course, we have to surrender power within Iraq to the middle east and to Iraq itself. Unfortunately we don't really have a diplomate on the Gov't payroll that can foster such a novel and complex agreement.