Bush vs. Kerry?

[DracIV]

Well, if the soldiers hadn't been sent into war at all there wouldn't be any deaths...

Hahaha, wrong. Did you know that 10,000 people died per month during Saddams reign? If we hadn't invaded the total death count would be over 200,000! Do you think 200k deaths doesn't count as anything? In literal terms, we saved more than 194,000 people!

[lildevilterpbaby]

thank you

[flypie743]

Yea, I agree with lildevilterpbaby, drac, and guido...

Jewpin...that pic is awesome!!

[talisman]

I meant deaths of US soldiers... that should have been obvious. Also, where are your sources that said that 10,00 people died a month? I'd be interested in seeing where you got that information.

Like I said, I can't just blindly trust the current administration, or any administration for that matter. I like to see physical evidence.

The fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein never showed any intentions of wanting to deliberately harm the US. He did want to expand his influence in his own territory, as evidenced by his invasions in Kuwait and hostility towards Iran.

I really highly doubt that there will be any definitive evidence that shows that Iraq wanted to specifically harm the US.

EDIT: I hope you guys watched the evening news today. About the Senate intelligence committee discovering that much of the CIA's intelligence about Iraq was misleading and inconsistent with fact...

[jewpinthethird]

i couldn't agree with guidohunter more. The point of the matter is that yes we did find substancial evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The loss of a few hundred soldiers is a far cry from the hundreds of thousands who more than likely would have dies if we had just sat here and done nothing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1258055,00.html

Even if you are anit-Bush or for Kerry (yea they're two different things) a small part of you has to admit that it would be better for Bush to finish what he started. If Kerry wins he'll not have as much knowledge on the current situation in the Middle East which could prove bad for us. I mean FDR served four terms so he could finish what he started and the nation was much better after his time.

Dont compare FDR to Bush. Japan attacked us first.

And also I know this is stupid but does it bother anyone else that Kerry and Edwards both are named John and have last names that can be first names????

It doesnt bother...but I have heard that People with interchangable first and last names were evil....I think my cousin told me that..but my cousin is a moron.

[lildevilterpbaby]

we didn't fine actual wmd but we did find plenty of evidence to suggest that they had the capability of making the weapons and personally I would rather not take the chance that they will. And secondly yea Japan attacked us first but um are you forgetting 911? We wouldn't have gone to war if it weren't for that. And the name thing just bothers me.

[ddrking133]

i vote for jesus

[talisman]

Saddam Hussein was not involved in 911. Refer to the findings of the September 11th commission.

[DracIV]

. . . and WHO do you think is to blame for our crippled intelligence devision, crippled military, and crippled foreign strength? Well, which party do you think was CUTTING and DESTROYING those areas for the past 8 years? You want them back again?

Anyway, Talisman, the average for deaths per month during Saddam's reign was 10k. Public information, doesn't count secret murders/executions.

[CypherToorima]

So, talisman, the death of anyone who isn't American doesn't mean anything to you? That's what I'm hearing when you say that if we hadn't have invaded, there would be no deaths. The wrongful death of anyone is a bad thing, and in such numbers, is a very very terrible thing. It's when people make death a petty thing that the world goes to hell.


...Go Nader(just kidding)

[Tank101]

I think a real debate would be Bush or Saddam Hussein.

Now that's a tough one.

[talisman]

Firstly, I was replying to guido about the deaths of US soldiers. It was obvious. Stop twisting my words.

Secondly, were these 10000 people being killed or just dying?

The death rate in 2003 for Iraq was around 12,000 per month.

The death rate in 2002 for the US was about 198000 per month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iraq

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_13.pdf

[DracIV]

Being killed; non-natural death directly attributed to Saddam

[talisman]

Can you provide a source that supports that claim? Because if that is true, then only 2000 people or so died of natural causes in Iraq per month.

[TheAppleEater]

Well out of the 10,000 that were killed 4,000 of them were probably going to die of natural causes soon, the more they kill the less there are to die naturally. So I believe that 10,000 would be killed and 2,000 die naturally.

I just guessed on those numbers, I dont know for sure what they are.

1 death is terrible, 10 deaths is a tragity, 1000 deaths is a statistic.