The Observation Deck

Richard Cole wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote: Iraqis also seem to be turning against Al Qaeda. These are small steps but at least they are in the right direction.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Al Qaeda had nothing to do Iraq prior to the US invasion/liberation.

What has been the cost, both in finances and human life, of achieving "small steps".

Who said anything about Al Qaeda being responsible for 9-11 in this thread??? or that Al Qaeda was responsible the US lead invasion fo Iraq??? I am not quite sure why you are bringing these subjects up??? These sound like mantras Please try to keep up with the rest of us... Thanks

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Richard Cole wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote: Iraqis also seem to be turning against Al Qaeda. These are small steps but at least they are in the right direction.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Al Qaeda had nothing to do Iraq prior to the US invasion/liberation.

What has been the cost, both in finances and human life, of achieving "small steps".

Who said anything about Al Qaeda being responsible for 9-11 in this thread??? or that Al Qaeda was responsible the US lead invasion fo Iraq??? I am not quite sure why you are bringing these subjects up??? These sound like mantras Please try to keep up with the rest of us... Thanks

I did not say Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 - read my post.
I did not say Al Qaeda was responsible for the US lead invasion - read my post.

I was making a simple, logical point. The cost, financial and human, in having Iraqis turn against a terrorist group that did not exist in Iraq prior to the invasion is ludicrous.

May I suggest, that a mantra to you, may just be the truth?
Keeping up - maybe you could suggest some Rumsfield/Bush literature that would illuminate the decision to invade Iraq - beyond the NeoCon mantra

Richard Cole wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Richard Cole wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote: Iraqis also seem to be turning against Al Qaeda. These are small steps but at least they are in the right direction.

Ken wrote: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Al Qaeda had nothing to do Iraq prior to the US invasion/liberation.What has been the cost, both in finances and human life, of achieving "small steps".

Who said anything about Al Qaeda being responsible for 9-11 in this thread??? or that Al Qaeda was responsible the US lead invasion fo Iraq??? I am not quite sure why you are bringing these subjects up??? These sound like mantras Please try to keep up with the rest of us... Thanks

I did not say Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 - read my post.
I did not say Al Qaeda was responsible for the US lead invasion - read my post.
I was making a simple, logical point. The cost, financial and human, in having Iraqis turn against a terrorist group that did not exist in Iraq prior to the invasion is ludicrous.

May I suggest, that a mantra to you, may just be the truth?
Keeping up - maybe you could suggest some Rumsfield/Bush literature that would illuminate the decision to invade Iraq - beyond the NeoCon mantra

We were discussing the progress in Iraq not the reason for the invasion. You wrote that Al Qaeda was not responsible for 9-11 and Al Qaeda (see your own writing in red) was not responsible for the US lead invasion of Iraq. I responded that who said anything about the reason for the invasion of Iraq or 9-11 in this thread.. So please once again try to keep up... I never mentioned in this thread the reasons for the invasion by the President or Congress or the Senate...

The dis-information on Iraq began long before Bush took office..

Stephen Eisel wrote:[

[color=red][b]Ken wrote:

Whose Ken

We are both talking about progress - I am merely pointing out that the progress you cite is on an objective that was created by the invasion itself, and the cost in finance and human life is ludicrous given that.

Keep up you say

Richard Cole wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:[

[color=red][b]Ken wrote:

Whose Ken

We are both talking about progress - I am merely pointing out that the progress you cite is on an objective that was created by the invasion itself, and the cost in finance and human life is ludicrous given that.

Keep up you say

put down the crack pipe now

cost in finance and human life is ludicrous given that.

If you are so concerned about human life then you may want to target the alcohol industry first. In 2005 39,189 people died in car accidents and 16,285 of those were alcohol related accidents.

A soldier that I knew (I am paraphrasing) "it is my life and my choice" "I know what I am volunteering for" He feared that people might mis-use his sacrifice if he were to die in Iraq for political gain or to make a political statement. He was for the war in Iraq and willing to sacrifice his life for his country and the people of Iraq. It may be ludicrous to you but it was not for him.

Stephen Eisel wrote:If you are so concerned about human life then you may want to target the alcohol industry first.

Tangent alert

Richard Cole wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:If you are so concerned about human life then you may want to target the alcohol industry first.

Tangent alert

lol