Thats the problem, they dont know how bad war is. We are raising a generation that are being sheltered, and protected from harms that wouldnt happen to them in a million years. Most people dont know how horible war is, and the people who do just dont join the military. We also are raising a generation that have been brought up on violence, since they see it so much they dont think it's bad, and they are most likely going to join the military.

Is fight republican oppression like... 12?

-Taylor

here is a note to all of those that want to automatically blame the other side of the political spectrum for issues or problems... stop it... both sides have their problems and their good, refusing to recognize as much is a football game mentality that has no service being involved in the governing of this country... this also applies to the "personal responsiblity" comment...

With that said, I disagree with a few points... the Iraqi civilian dead is a bit more than 7,645-13,700... I think the rough estimates are 23456 to 26559... but that does not really matter...

The idea that we had more reasons to go to war with Iraq than with Germany in WWII is short of rational thought... Germany posed a bigger threat than Iraq to the world and proved it by invading and occupying vast amounts of land in Europe and Russia... I am not even going to mention the Holocaust since this was not one of the main reasons to go to war... I just can not see your logic in saying this... in fact I am more than willing to hear/read how you think what your reasoning is that we should be in Iraq in the first place...

The mention that without US involvement in Europe argument is without factual data... we don't know what could have happened since it did not happen... concerning the Nazi atomic bomb theory, new research shows otherwise... Heisenberg had an error in the calculations in 1940 and was not able to correct it... in fact he did not know he had a failed calculation until after war... thus, while it might sound all chilly on the History Channel that such a bomb was close, new research shows otherwise...

Just for the record, I am one of those people that is tired of hearing the comparisons between the dead and wounded in Iraq v. any other conflict... this does not mean anything since this war is not conventional... it is not comparable then... it is like comparing the deaths to those in the Tsunami last December to a tornado...

sends -
"I really feel sorry for anyone who would use their dead son to further their personal political agenda."
-What about those who use the dead of 9/11 to further theirs?

"However, I would expect nothing less from a baby boomer. And as someone who has served this nation proudly, I can tell her that indeed her son did volunteer; HE CHOSE to join the service; HE CHOSE to swear an oath; HE CHOSE to go and fight despite the possibilities."
-Deriding a whole generation? A generation that fought and died in Vietnam? That is more than misguided, it is simply wrong.

"Now, SHE CHOOSES to soil her son's memory, and SHE CHOOSES to slander her seated president in a time of war."
-You need to read the last paragraph of Altshiftdelete's first post here.

"and perhaps you are the moron in not realizing that if the fight weren't in Iraq, it would be on your front steps"
-Maybe you should tell that to the people of London...? Did it keep the fight off their front steps? And what makes you think it will not return to ours?

"" P.S. What does it feel like to be the only black republican.. pretty much ever? You must be rich."
- You sir, are a Racist Pig. And you are a hypocrite of the largest order. I guess your "liberealism" doesn't allow people of a darker skin color to have a free thought of their own? (Well they can, as long as it's the exact thoughts that you do)"
-Well, as far as that goes... I totally agree with you, Sends.

"Ahem....at two different times during Clinton's reign of terror the CIA knew the EXACT location of Osama and asked good ol' Billy for permission to get rid of him --- both times Clinton said 'no' because he didn't want to cause any waves.....wonderful guy there."
 
Nice… the “Clinton’s reign of terror” comment undercuts your ability to see things without the partisan glasses on… this shows to me a lack of trying to find the truth but corner a scapegoat without looking at the picture as a whole…
 
while it is easy to point back to those days without taking in consideration the actual political climate of the world… since 9/11 all of that has changed and everyone should be able to recognize that… the fact that the time we were following international law and not overstepping it is an important fact that seems to be missed by the same said argument that you and others have presented… It is pretty simple to understand and according to all reports he did not overlook these offers lightly but it was the US AG and International Law experts that were more concerned with breaking International Law and the affects it would have on the world…
 
Let’s look at both times Sudan “offered up” bin Laden… the first time in 1996, Clinton was in favor of grabbing him but he was informed that A) bin Laden has not been indicted thus could not be arrested and B) as of at that time there was not evidence to indict him… then later in 1996 as US and Sudan enjoyed better relations through talks the White House was informed that bin Laden was being expelled… Clinton worked with Sudan and Saudi Arabia to have bin Laden sent to the Saudis and charged where there was an indictment against him however the Saudis backed out since they did not want to get involved with “the hot potato”—in other words, they knew that by arresting him they would be wide open for more internal strife from those looking to overthrow King Faud… Next Clinton tried Egypt to hold bin Laden until he could be justly arrested and sent to the US, but Egypt did not want to get involved either…
 
There were several other times in which we had photos of bin Laden and locations but the CIA and FBI said that they were not ready to react within such a short period of time… but to conclude that Clinton did nothing concerning bin Laden is entirely wrong even if he did not get him…
 
Let’s remember the political climate in this country during the late 90s in which polarized government spent more time bickering and backbiting than looking out for the country… anything that Clinton did (from the cruise missile attacks on bin Laden and Iraq to helping out in Kosovo) was seen and reported as wagging the dog…
 
As far as your comment that CIA asked twice to get rid of bin Laden and were denied falls in to another area... there was an Excutive Order to kill and not capture bin Laden and some specified lieutenants, a few of the times when it came close enough to do so the intelligence was questioned and too much time elapsed... he also issued orders to work with various "tribal forces" (with CIA handlers) to fight al Qaeda with the goal of killing or capturing bin Laden and company... these attacks did not gain much since al Qaeda was much stronger than anticipated... plus you have to remember one other thing concerning these events as highlighted in the 9/11 report... our intelligence aparatus in the region was less than stellar and it seemed that it was not getting better (it still isn't that great now)...
 
There were mistakes made during the Clinton years as far as terrorism just as the years previous to that and Bush 43’s term before 9/11… however to try to place blame squarely on one (Clinton) or the other (Bush) is without basis in reality… there was no smoking gun so to speak but a series of events and policies that was not ready to work within a world of a nationless enemy such al Qaeda…
 
“And Iraq WOULD be just as big of a threat if we hadn't done something (in the early 90's and now). In the 1930's people claimed that Hitler wasn't a threat either....we both know they were wrong.”
 
I agree with WSR that it is a fallacy to try to compare the army in Iraq (even in the early 90s which doesn’t play in to your argument for us being there now) to that of Germany in the 30s and 40s…

”It is also known fact by historians and tacticians that if Hitler hadn't been forced to fight the US and the USSR at the same time, he would've been virtually unstoppable -- so if we hadn't gottne involved, yes Europe would be run by Hitler now (if he hadn't died of old age). Germany had many weapons in development (non-atomic) that would've done catastrophic damage if they'd gotten into production. For example -- Germany had two different bombers in development that could fly from Berlin to the east coast of the US, drop their payload, and return to Berlin without refuling. Needless to say, if these bombers had made it into production we wouldn't have an east coast to the US.”
 
First off, let me point out a minor issue I have with your comment here and that is forgetting the rest of the allies… their fighting and sacrifices are just as important as our involvement… but forget that for a moment and let’s go to the other part of your thought which is discussing a two-front war… even before the US got involved, there was a two-front war in progress (Africa and USSR)… this is the important thing… Germany while being the super power they were did not have enough resources nor manpower to continue a protracted two-front war with or without our help… this is why when Hitler decided to invade the USSR, he made the statement to his generals that they would be defeat the Russians by winter in order to avoid a long war on both fronts… this is the only way that the German General Staff and tacticians see the success of Germany happening…
 
As far as the Super Weapons… that is great in theory but there are a few problems with your thought process here… actual production it is one thing to draw up and plan a super weapon with groundbreaking technology but to actually produce it especially as resources started to suffer and they had to prioritize such resources towards the war effort is another thing… the long range bombers you speak of were theory and very, very little “development were performed on these plans (even though a prototype of the JU 390 was made and flown within 12 miles of NYC but it could not fly from Berlin to the US but from German held territory to the US)… plus it is overlooking several internal problems within Germany and the war planning, for example the jet planes (such as the ME 262) was pushed by Hitler to be solely a bomber while the designers planned on it being a fighter… it took wasted time and resources before Hitler decided it could be a fighter… but I digress… your last point which is if these super bombers would have been made in to production and did attack the East Coast then you presume we would not have an East Coast… which is laughable… the distance needed to travel from Europe to the US along with our technology in radar would have given us a decent chance to fight off such attacks since there is very little thought that these bombers (JU 390) could be made in such massive production to allow such devastating attacks… it is true a few could get through but it would not “destroy” the East Coast… just remember the amount of tonnage that was dropped over London and it still stood… I give you credit because usually when the theory of “if we did not get involved in the European Theatre of Operations (ETO) during WWII, we would all be speaking German…” since this can soundly be put to rest… at most, the US would have stayed neutral and left pretty much alone (remember the America First group?)
 
Just for the record, there are some historians and tacticians who believe that Germany would have been defeated without US troop involvement since Russia became a quagmire and the Brits started to roll up the Germans in Africa… combined they were cutting off the major oil supplies of the German army… the Russians were starting their own offenses and pushing West… the great “what if” scenario that is generally accepted is that if the US did not become militarily involved in Europe, the Soviets would have defeated Hitler and the UK would have been left alone again… it should be noted that the Germans did not seem to have the capacity nor the heart to invade Great Britain…
 
“Also, the vast majority of anti-war people use the reasoning of "Iraq didn't attack us" for why we shouldn't have gone to war -- Germany never attacked us either ---- JAPAN did. We had legitimate reason (by their reasoning) to take out Japan, but didn't have a beef with Germany.”
 
You are forgetting a few things… 1) Germany declared war on the US on December 8, 1941… thus we were in a state of war with Germany, 2) When Germany declared war, it opened the floodgates to attack our shipping convoys since they did not consider us neutral… and as it was, they had already attacked our convoys before thus they did attack us… 3) The threat to Europe  and Africa means that Germany was much more of a threat at the time than Iraq was to us in 2003… 4) our alliances with our colored cousins (UK and France) added an incentive to help in the war effort more than just materials… 5) the threat of Communism can not be discounted since FDR (and Churchill) did not trust Stalin and figured that if projections were correct, Europe could fall to Communism…