So what makes better sense leaving with less than 3000 dead

[catmandu57]

or waiting around until we have 5000 dead.
Someone please tell me what the hell difference it's going to make, because dead is fucking dead.

[physioex]

1. You expect him to.....

"Err on the side of life"? I think they prefer perpetual war and suffering for some reason.....

[coalition_unwilling]

2. How about 58,000 dead? Can we leave then?

[BuyingThyme]

3. Why don't you support the troops?

[sweetheart]

4. I had this conversation with a republican...

..and the response was "I agree with you about all that, except,
that president bush is right that there is a serious threat." .. as if
that was an ace that was supposed to explain it all, that the big authority
was right. And i responded, "Yes, fine, he's right, and 3000 civilians
were murdered in the WTC, and now we've murdered 100000 in an asian desert.
How many more dead is enough?... are you ready to go die there?"

People are willing to send others to their deaths for an abstraction, and
any conversation that makes it personal, causes a dissonant break.

[bluerum]

5. Don't forget the national resources being wasted. Billions

of dollars, military preparedness, international goodwill, lack of resources for improving domestic agendas. Not to minimize the loss of American lives, but the incredible loss of Iraqi lives. The country (Iraq) is trashed.

All in all it has been a fiasco and somehow the necons cannot see it. I guess I would ask, in what sense has it been a success?

edit sp. typo's too! :dunce:

[catmandu57]

6. Check this

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?

[rhiannon55]

7. And if we can't leave Iraq until we "win"

what would winning look like? The repukes can't answer that one, either.:crazy: