Fourteen of the Biggest Myths About Iraq

It is reasonable to expect a report of such great magnitude to be updated often. I mean, if it is of such great importance for you to count the bodies as one would assume, seeing as how this whole study was done in the first place.

I suspect the attention of the author of this study wanned when he got paid. Which ties in nicely with the useful idiot term used on the website.

I do have to say...I really appreciated this:

 

Yes then you can argue over how America lost the Iraq war like some do over the Vietnam conflict. Thatll solve it. :thumbs:

Its all just 'talking' to some people I guess. Dont pay any attention to the human beings involved here.

 

Speaking of myths...what ever happened to all those underground bunkers Saddam was supposed to have had anyway? I would have thought by now PBS would have done a made for tv special on them or something.

SOURCE

 

You may think it's reasonable that the study would be updated, often, but it wasn't for whatever reason - funding, logistics, interest...Since the study was NOT updated, it is the opposite of reasonableness to expect the number produced by a single published study to somehow update itself. The number is based on reality rather than expectations.

That statement proves that you didn't read the study and are just speaking from ignorance.

 

So where did you cut & paste this from, carpro? You're suppose to post your source.

You haven't proven that liberals with words are more dangerous than militant jihadists with weapons. How is Durbin decrying the misery at Gitmo more dangerous than suicide bombers crashing planes into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon? Furthermore, it's a partisan lie that Durbin compared our servicemen to "the worst killers in modern times"; he compared the civilian command to them.

Murtha called for enough ground troops in Iraq to stablilze that country OR getting out. How is that more demoralizing than not having enough troops to prevent the reconstruction done so far from being destroyed?

The only thing you've proven is that your concept of "dangerous" is totally political, not reality-based and incredibly trivial.

 

You might want to check your facts on the Murtha quote.

 

I have. Have you?

 

Seems to me that our military met the objective given to them of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

The Iraq quagmire is a result of very poor, if any, planning by the Bush administration as to what would happen afterward. Maybe they thought that a democracy would just spring up spontaneously.

 

Source please

 

But you didn't prove a thing.

Since when do you open a paragraph using quotation marks (") and a different font than the default? If you wrote it yourself, why would you use elipses in your text? There are quite a few phrases in quotes with no reference.

 

Which Murtha quote? Since I didn't quote him, you'll have to be more specific as to what you mean. What exactly are you challenging?

 

Yes indeedy, why shouldn't you sprinkle "what you wrote" with quotation marks and "... pointless" elipses"? :laugh:

I'm fairly familiar with your posting style; this is an aberration for you and a senseless one at that.

If you consider it proper to omit select words and all context - which I do not.

Hey, you found the words, you should have the references. Once you provide the references you took the words from - then I can look it up to see if by leaving out words in the sentences and plucking the sentences from their paragraphs you distorted the meaning or not.

Sure, go ahead. But why do you think I won't like it? It's good for a person to read things they don't like every so often.