Question on Terrorism

[bolverk]

How many terrorist countries renounced terrorism under our last Democratic President?

How many under our current President?

[saunterelle]

What a stupid, loaded question!

[bolverk]

Really, is that because you know that under Bill Clinton terrorism actually expanded? Or is it because you know that under Clinton terrorists were allowed to freely infiltrate Kosovo to support the Ethnic Albanians who were killing the religious leaders of the the Serbians?

Or is it because that it is a verifiable fact that Lebanon renounced terrorism after George W. Bush showed his level of resolve in both Afghanistan and Iraq?

Exactly what makes it a stupid and loaded question? Do you hate the fact of life that Lebanon, the country responsible for the deaths of 241 American servicemen, 58 French servicemen and 6 civilians in two separate truck bombings has renounced terrorism?

What, exactly, makes it a loaded and stupid question? Because it is a Bush accomplishment that Clinton could never achieve?

[bolverk]

Bush did with one war what could not be achieved in more then ten years by the U.N. with sanctions, U.N. Resolutions or diplomacy. In the long run, it will actually save more lives in Iraq then it has cost. But, you won't agree with that even though it is true.

[saunterelle]

"Bush did with one war what could not be achieved in more then ten years by the U.N. with sanctions, U.N. Resolutions or diplomacy. In the long run, it will actually save more lives in Iraq then it has cost. But, you won't agree with that even though it is true."

It's unbelievable if this is what you believe!!

You asked an incredibly loaded question. Loaded because 9/11 changed the world, putting counter-terrorism as our #1 priority. Thus, we needed a symbolic renouncement of terrorism from certain countries. It isn't Bush's "accomplishment," he simply asked certain countries to "renounce" terrorism.

[The New Guy]

santurelle says,

"Itisn't Bush's "accomplishment," he simply asked certain countries to "renounce" terrorism.

oh, this is hillarious. so why doesn't bush just "ask" iran to renounce terrorism or "ask" north korea to abandon it's nuclear ambitions or just "ask" cuba to cast off socialism?

one day you berate pres. bush for being a blithering idiot and the next day you applaud his "magical powers."

btw, thank you for finally admitting that 9/11 did in fact change the world. it changed the way america deals with terrorism. thank god GWB was in the white house at the time and not al gore.

[bolverk]

So basically you are saying that Muammar al-Gaddafi renounced terrorism because Bush asked him too? saunterelle, you are truly amazing. As far as I can tell, and I have been following current events since I joined the military in 1978, only one nation has renounced terrorism, and it was Libya. And no, they did not do it because Bush asked them too.

And yes, the Iraqi people will be better off much sooner if we do not abandon them now that they are no longer living in fear of a genocidal despot by the name of Saddam Hussein. If we do not abandon them, they will surely become a nation much like Turkey, secular. In the long run, it will provide them with a better country, where all can prosper, if we do not abandon them, as Barack Hussein Obama suggests in all his speeches.

[bolverk]

Jun 4, 2008 18:05:20 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

"Bush did with one war what could not be achieved in more then ten years by the U.N. with sanctions, U.N. Resolutions or diplomacy. In the long run, it will actually save more lives in Iraq then it has cost. But, you won't agree with that even though it is true."

It's unbelievable if this is what you believe!!

You asked an incredibly loaded question. Loaded because 9/11 changed the world, putting counter-terrorism as our #1 priority. Thus, we needed a symbolic renouncement of terrorism from certain countries. It isn't Bush's "accomplishment," he simply asked certain countries to "renounce" terrorism.

Oh, and by the way, I believe the reason you prevaricate is because you do not know the answer.

[saunterelle]

Over 1 million Iraqis have been killed in Iraq due to Bush's blunderous war.

4091 American troops have been killed and more than 30,000 have been wounded since the war began in 2003.

I ask you, how many more lives is it worth to you to rescue your party from the shame and disgrace of a failed war. The fact is we're in the quagmire that Cheney predicted in 1994. It's time to pull out now and bring our troops home safely.

[mrroqout]

Right ..One Million Iraqis.

WHERE does this data come from cause I can give you 4-5 links showing it anywhere from 100K to 800K who do you believe?

You sure love Cheney. I think your Che shirt is too tight cutting off the air to the space in your head where a normal person has a brain.

[saunterelle]

You're right, it is an extremely difficult number to estimate. You are obviously getting your numbers from American media sources.

Here is a well reputable British source: www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

And here is an article from the Washington Post citing a Johns Hopkins study in 2006 showing over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed. It isn't hard to extrapolate to now and find that number over 1 million.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

[harpman1]

They will stop dying when they stop killing each other & us.

Certainly you're not implying U.S. troops killed 1 million, are you?

Let's make a deal. We get to invade any country we want, but when we reach 1,000,000 dead locals, we have to go home.

It was way, way past time to invade & occupy a middle eastern nation in 2003.

We never should have left in 1991-92, but when you go w/the UN, you leave w/the UN.

I am so glad we went to Iraq; soon we will go to Iran.

Or maybe just send our ICBM's.