Kestra,
In August there were 37 murders reported in Detroit.
In August there were 36 American Soldiers killed in ALL of Iraq.
Printable View
Kestra,
In August there were 37 murders reported in Detroit.
In August there were 36 American Soldiers killed in ALL of Iraq.
According to this website (which uses DOD and Centcom as sources) 66 US Soldiers died in Iraq in August:
http://icasualties.org/oif/
It's also worth remembering that there are only around US 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and probably only 30-40k of those are in harms way.
Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
I don't see the wisdom in electing a man for 4 more years for the reasons above, and who can not even mention WMD's or bin Laden.
:eek
Actually, I had the opportunity to see Busy give a speech when he came to a nearby town in my area.
I was pleasently surprised when he DID mention WMD's. I could not give you an exact quote, but he did acknowledge the fact that they did not find the stockpile they were expecting, and that even if he knew what he did now, he still would have pushed for the invasion.
Malacasta's point reminds me of something Juan Cole, a History Professor from Michegan wrote on this subject. It's on his web site, but you have to scroll down to the entry for yesterday (Wednesday, September 22)Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
According to this website (which uses DOD and Centcom as sources) 66 US Soldiers died in Iraq in August:
http://icasualties.org/oif/
It's also worth remembering that there are only around US 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and probably only 30-40k of those are in harms way.
http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_j...e_archive.html
Bear in mind, I don't think we have any choice but to remain in Iraq. If anything, Professor Cole's piece makes me all the more certain of that necessity. However, Malacasta is right. Bush and his fans are either in denial about the conditions in Iraq or deliberately misleading the public.
I understand some people's frustration with Kerry's flip flopping, but he certainly isn't the only one.
Bush has done plenty of it himself.
Flip flopping isn't always a negative thing. Changing one's opinion on something can lead to a better perspective and understanding.
http://www.democrats.org/specialrepo...p10_flipflops/
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ng_flip_flops/
LOL.
Democrats.org and the Boston Globe.
The links section of Moveon.org really came in handy there, eh?
Didn't use Moveon.org, nor do I.
I used Google.
I want Kerry to win solely for selfish personal reasons. I'm living in South Korea. I think that if Bush is re-elected he'll try and do 'something' with North korea. Whatever he might do it will seriously seriously fuck up my life in South Korea. Whether it be a war or.. a nuclear war. It's gonna suck. Every korean I met just wants the US to fuck off out of Korea (that's adults too, not just my kids) and I seriously wouldn't mind that. I think Bush might do something, way beyond the reach of the US and try and do something with North Korea. (reach = an "acceptable" number of US casualties, I'm not knocking the raw power of the US here)
North Korea may have outdated shit but they got the artillery to level Seoul in a few hours stacked up on the borders. That won't affect me directly because I'm way down south, but it'll seriously screw up my plans of making a bit of money and quitting. So, I'm totally selfishly here, all about Kerry. Mainly because I don't think he'll do anything in/to North Korea. Oh yeah, a nuclear type war WOULD probably fuck me wherever I am in korea =) So that would kinda.. really suck =)
-tharun
I'm wondering why it takes SOOOO long. In Canada there is a limit of how long you can campaign (that isn't THAT long). In addition, we have more than 2 major parties. So here we can focus, I feel, a bit more on the issues than who is the lesser of 2 evils (though that comes into play, we have more than 2 to choose from).
In watching a hunk of the debate, I agree that Kerry changed his views a number of times. However, Bush looked like a monkey when Kerry was talking. He was licking his lips, turning his head sideways, looking confused, etc. Oops, did I just give my bias that I'm not a Bush supporter? Whomever wins the election effects the world so, I'd rather have a flip-flopper than a man who isn't very articulate and, to me, appears to just be a figure-head who is saying what is written in front of him or coming from a listening device in his ear without any input.
Bush signed the papers to send troops to Iraq, etc who caught Sadaam and accomplished other things that, in the long run, may help the world or cause repercussions.
I think, as a Canadian, I'd like the leader of the US to be someone who is take charge, but not to the point where they go in headstrong and end up having to fabricate, or over exaggerate the reasons for their decisions.
:chat
Someone sent this to me, and it makes light of both sides.
www.jibjab.com
Click on the 'This land' cartoon. (Beware, there is sound.)
:boxers