Someone posted that the Iraq War wasn't so bad compared to other wars

[bendog]

due to lower dead counts so far. I think I recall who this was, and I didn't respond at the time, because I wouldn't have held my temper, and I'm grateful not to have been in close physical proximity.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9567363

Also, someone else posted on this site that the actual casualties per unit, with a smaller army and guys doing multiple deployments/tours, the casualties per unit are on a par with vietnam.

I saw this

http://www.slate.com/id/2111432

though Slate is perhaps less reliable that whatever stat was tossed out then.

[Stuck In Texas]

It may be me you're thinking of, and if you are, I don't believe I ever said it wasn't "as bad" as other wars. The point I was making is that from a strategic point of view, losing 3000 guys, while horrible, is a fairly low casualty rate for invading a country and occupying it for four years.

As I said before, I would never say that each one of those lives lost isn't tragic, my comments were from a purely military strategy point of view. 3000 guys (and girls) is tragic, but in past wars that many were lost in a day. I'm thankful we haven't seen anything like that.

[patteeu]

I wasn't the one who said it, but I'll say it now. In terms of dead Americans (and, btw, US dollars), Iraq has been a relatively cheap war compared to earlier American wars (e.g. Vietnam, WWI and WWII). If you compare casualties as a percentage of our country's population, even more so.

Regarding your Salon article, it's worth noting that they have to exaggerate the Iraq death toll by "controlling" for advances in medical technology, medical evacuation, body armor, or military technology and by expressing casualties as a fraction of the size of the military force in theater to make the numbers comparable. In terms of actual deaths, there were 849 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) US deaths in 2004 Iraq compared to 6,143 (http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#year) in 1966 Vietnam.

And that leaves aside the fact that 1966 wasn't even one of the bloodier years of that conflict (casualties rose as high as 16,592 at the war's peak in 1968). Two years after the 2004 Iraq year the study used did we see the same kind of casualty escalation that we saw in Vietnam from 1966 to 1968? No. In 2006, US casualties dropped slightly to 822. There is no comparison. Let's not even get into the bodycounts of WWII.

----------------------

No casualties are unimportant, but exaggerating the casualties of Iraq in order to pursue a political agenda is pure demagoguery. I'm not necessarily accusing you of this. I'll leave it to each individual to decide whether the shoe fits.

Demagoguery - the act of obscuring or distorting with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.

[enjolras]

It may be me you're thinking of, and if you are, I don't believe I ever said it wasn't "as bad" as other wars. The point I was making is that from a strategic point of view, losing 3000 guys, while horrible, is a fairly low casualty rate for invading a country and occupying it for four years.

Isn't part of the reason for that having something to do with how ineffective the occupation has been? One of the most shocking things (to me) when Gates took over was that the first he thing he did was begin aggressively deploying troops outside of the cordoned off 'safe' areas. Essentially there had been no prolonged U.S. troop deployment since the beginning of the occupation. Instead they where relying on intermittent patrols (thus the issues with IED's). Of course the insurgents just waited till the patrol drove by to resume their activities.

[Stuck In Texas]

Isn't part of the reason for that having something to do with how ineffective the occupation has been? One of the most shocking things (to me) when Gates took over was that the first he thing he did was begin aggressively deploying troops outside of the cordoned off 'safe' areas. Essentially there had been no prolonged U.S. troop deployment since the beginning of the occupation. Instead they where relying on intermittent patrols (thus the issues with IED's). Of course the insurgents just waited till the patrol drove by to resume their activities.

That's probably partly true, but also probably because we are fighting small groups of fighters who don't have the capacity to take us on in large-scale engagements. They can only take pot-shots here and there and hope to get lucky. I really wish they could find a more effective defense against the IEDs. They are responsible for well over 50% of our casualties. I have been a huge critic of our troop numbers following the war. I'm a huge believer in overwhelming force.

Another reason that I think casualties are fairly low is because, contrary to the common perception in this country, a majority of the country is, for the most part, pacified. The insurgents have learned what the Vietnamese learned before them - that taking on the U.S. mano-a-mano is a losing proposition so they have to rely on small-scale attacks. I think that's a large reason why there aren't more casualties.

I want to add a disclaimer that I understand that every dead and wounded soldier is somebody's father, son, husband, wife, daughter, and or mother and the loss of even a single life is truly a tragedy. Not a day goes by that I don't think of them and mourn for them.

[ant1999e]

It's a different kind of war. I don't think it is easy to compare to other wars. Different type of enemy and fighting technique.

[Spider]

Soccer balls ................ Nuff said

[Spider]

It's a different kind of war. I don't think it is easy to compare to other wars. Different type of enemy and fighting technique.

I would agree , plus the technology is far and above , Nam was close , but we had a safe side of a country to retreat , plan , get drunk , and Michale J fox to make a movie ;D , Iraq not even the green zone is safe ............

[Cito Pelon]

The point has been made that the US is willing to make some noise in the region. Pouring more resources into Iraq with no withdrawal plan is useless. There is no golden pot at the end of the rainbow predictions. The smart play is a gradual withdrawal no matter how it sticks in some people's craw.

[ant1999e]

I would agree , plus the technology is far and above , Nam was close , but we had a safe side of a country to retreat , plan , get drunk , and Michale J fox to make a movie ;D , Iraq not even the green zone is safe ............

I don't know why they call it the green zone. I've been to the middle east and there ain't much green.

[Bronco Bob]

It may be me you're thinking of, and if you are, I don't believe I ever said it wasn't "as bad" as other wars. The point I was making is that from a strategic point of view, losing 3000 guys, while horrible, is a fairly low casualty rate for invading a country and occupying it for four years.

As I said before, I would never say that each one of those lives lost isn't tragic, my comments were from a purely military strategy point of view. 3000 guys (and girls) is tragic, but in past wars that many were lost in a day. I'm thankful we haven't seen anything like that.

One thing to consider is the ratio of dead to wounded compared to previous wars.
In Iraq there a higher ratio of dead to wounded due to better body
armor and advanced first aid techniques.
In Iraq for every 1 soldier killed, 9.2 are wounded.
In Vietnam is was 1 killed for every 3.3 wounded.
In WW2 it was about 1 killed for every 2.3 wounded.
The Civil war it was 1 killed to every 1.3 wounded.
What would have killed someone in a previous war now has someone alive,
but perhaps maimed for life.

[colosilverado]

One thing to consider is the ratio of dead to wounded compared to previous wars.
In Iraq there a higher ratio of dead to wounded due to better body
armor and advanced first aid techniques.
In Iraq for every 1 soldier killed, 9.2 are wounded.
In Vietnam is was 1 killed for every 3.3 wounded.
In WW2 it was about 1 killed for every 2.3 wounded.
The Civil war it was 1 killed to every 1.3 wounded.
What would have killed someone in a previous war now has someone alive,
but perhaps maimed for life.

Yeah, I've seen sites where they show guys that they have pieced back together. You feel for those guys. Most of the ones I have seen have said they'd do it again. Yes, it was a relatively small sampling and I am not trumpeting the fact that they said they'd do it again. I feel like those wounded guys are basically dead....or at least the person they were is dead. That is tragic.

[Rohirrim]

I once read an estimate of the casualties of WWII that took into account disease, famine, and every other cause of death that could be directly attributed to the effects of that war and the final figure for total deaths was 62 million.

Anybody ever think about it? If we reduced the population of the earth to a sustainable level, everyone could have everything they need. The oceans would replenish. The land would heal. We could live in paradise. But instead, we struggle. We fight. We invent different gods and kill each other over that. We create a superficial world that drives us mad while we struggle against each other to make our own ends meet. Meanwhile, we create a world of haves and have nots. The haves want this superficial creation to continue ad infinitum, regardless of the costs. The have nots just want to survive. And we never ask what the final sum of all this "progress" will be. What is the purpose of mankind's struggle? What is the purpose of all of his wars? Ask yourself. What is the final goal?

We create a world that destroys the environment we need to survive as a species, and then we fix in our minds the idea that our superficial world is more crucial to us than our water and air. Why?

We are the crazy apes. ;D

[TailgateNut]

I once read an estimate of the casualties of WWII that took into account disease, famine, and every other cause of death that could be directly attributed to the effects of that war and the final figure for total deaths was 62 million.

Anybody ever think about it? If we reduced the population of the earth to a sustainable level, everyone could have everything they need. The oceans would replenish. The land would heal. We could live in paradise. But instead, we struggle. We fight. We invent different gods and kill each other over that. We create a superficial world that drives us mad while we struggle against each other to make our own ends meet. Meanwhile, we create a world of haves and have nots. The haves want this superficial creation to continue ad infinitum, regardless of the costs. The have nots just want to survive. And we never ask what the final sum of all this "progress" will be. What is the purpose of mankind's struggle? What is the purpose of all of his wars? Ask yourself. What is the final goal?

We create a world that destroys the environment we need to survive as a species, and then we fix in our minds the idea that our superficial world is more crucial to us than our water and air. Why?

We are the crazy apes. ;D


The final goal is to erase ourselves. But "we'll" be happy because we didn't allow anyone nor anything to change our coarse. We'll be "proud" that we were "steadfast" in our beliefs.

The key to it all is our arrogance.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I wasn't the one who said it, but I'll say it now. In terms of dead Americans (and, btw, US dollars), Iraq has been a relatively cheap war compared to earlier American wars (e.g. Vietnam, WWI and WWII). Nonsense! VA costs alone will be over 1.5 trillion dollars for Bush's grudge match.

[patteeu]

Nonsense! VA costs alone will be over 1.5 trillion dollars for Bush's grudge match.

It's absolutely true, whether you like it or not, that the immediate, measurable costs for this war are very low by comparison to other wars when measured as a fraction of our national output. It's also true that the extended costs that you bring up are likely to be carried by an even larger economy than we have today, keeping the burden of this war relatively light in financial terms compared to wars like Vietnam and WWII.

I don't reject your point completely, but it is hard to project those costs with any confidence and it's also true that those costs will be spread out over a long period of time.

[TailgateNut]

It's absolutely true, whether you like it or not, that the immediate, measurable costs for this war are very low by comparison to other wars when measured as a fraction of our national output. It's also true that the extended costs that you bring up are likely to be carried by an even larger economy than we have today, keeping the burden of this war relatively light in financial terms compared to wars like Vietnam and WWII.

I don't reject your point completely, but it is hard to project those costs with any confidence and it's also true that those costs will be spread out over a long period of time.

Well, given your reasoning, this war is a ****ing bargain! What a troll!
Why don't you call some of the families who have lost a family member and tell them this war really isn't that expensive, and then come back and tell us where they told you to go!

[patteeu]

Well, given your reasoning, this war is a ****ing bargain! What a troll!
Why don't you call some of the families who have lost a family member and tell them this war really isn't that expensive, and then come back and tell us where they told you to go!

You sound pretty emotional. Are you a woman?

I guess I may seem like a troll since it's apparently pretty uncommon for anyone to break through the mutually-reinforcing looney-left groupthink thing you guys have going on around here. It's like I've found a tribe of remote villagers in the middle of the internet jungle who've never come in contact with the concepts of independent, rational thought and healthy skepticism.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's absolutely true, whether you like it or not, that the immediate, measurable costs for this war are very low by comparison to other wars when measured as a fraction of our national output. It's also true that the extended costs that you bring up are likely to be carried by an even larger economy than we have today, keeping the burden of this war relatively light in financial terms compared to wars like Vietnam and WWII.

I don't reject your point completely, but it is hard to project those costs with any confidence and it's also true that those costs will be spread out over a long period of time.Exactly as will just about every other cost of this irresponsible administration! Trying to rebuild our military will cost us hundreds of billions also. There is nothing about this administration's costs to this country that can be considered "relatively light in financial terms".

[bendog]

Did anyone listen to the NPR link to the interview with the guys who did the HBO documentary "Bagdhad ER," or has anyone seen the film. I don't have HBO, and I didn't make it through the interview the first time I heard it, driving to pick up my daughter after school.

[TailgateNut]

You sound pretty emotional. Are you a woman?

I guess I may seem like a troll since it's apparently pretty uncommon for anyone to break through the mutually-reinforcing looney-left groupthink thing you guys have going on around here. It's like I've found a tribe of remote villagers in the middle of the internet jungle who've never come in contact with the concepts of independent, rational thought and healthy skepticism.


Just because I don't agree with your reasoning doesn't mean I follow a particular "groupthink". I try to look a the long term impacts of this war. Not only the financial, but also the psychological. Both will severely affect out budget and our abilty to continue having a viable volunteer military force in the near future.

BTW: you do not SEEM like a troll, You ARE a troll.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Did anyone listen to the NPR link to the interview with the guys who did the HBO documentary "Bagdhad ER," or has anyone seen the film. I don't have HBO, and I didn't make it through the interview the first time I heard it, driving to pick up my daughter after school.Haven't seen it but don't have HBO either. Is it available somewhere (the interview)?

[Rohirrim]

You sound pretty emotional. Are you a woman?

I guess I may seem like a troll since it's apparently pretty uncommon for anyone to break through the mutually-reinforcing looney-left groupthink thing you guys have going on around here. It's like I've found a tribe of remote villagers in the middle of the internet jungle who've never come in contact with the concepts of independent, rational thought and healthy skepticism.

I know you real macho men like to use that "Are you a woman" thing as some kind of insult, but you should know there are women on this board who might find that, not only insulting, but immature as well. Okay, Macho? Y..M..C..A...;D

[TailgateNut]

Okay, Macho? Y..M..C..A...;D


;D


Patty is one of those "men" who sees women as muslims see women. They are inferior in his opinion.

I, for one am ducking from the inevitable incoming barrage!

[patteeu]

Just because I don't agree with your reasoning doesn't mean I follow a particular "groupthink". I try to look a the long term impacts of this war. Not only the financial, but also the psychological. Both will severely affect out budget and our abilty to continue having a viable volunteer military force in the near future.

BTW: you do not SEEM like a troll, You ARE a troll.

What about the long term effects on our national psyche in terms of becoming comfortable with defeat on the battlefield? What about the impact on other friendly countries in terms of whether we can be relied upon to follow through with our promises? What about the impact on potential adversaries who will see a premature withdrawal as confirmation that the US is indeed the paper tiger that Osama had claimed us to be?

If you're worried about the government's budget, there are plenty of places other than the Iraq war effort that you can cut that won't have negative impacts on any of the above.

Since I haven't followed your political positions, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the groupthink thing.

[patteeu]

I know you real macho men like to use that "Are you a woman" thing as some kind of insult, but you should know there are women on this board who might find that, not only insulting, but immature as well. Okay, Macho? Y..M..C..A...;D

So is she or is he not a woman? S/he didn't answer. Either way, s/he seems to be more focused on emotional arguments than on dispassionate analysis.

Very gallant of you to speak up for the womenfolk though, roh. As though they can't speak for themselves. I hope for your sake that they don't find that offensive too.

[Rohirrim]

What about the long term effects on our national psyche in terms of becoming comfortable with defeat on the battlefield? What about the impact on other friendly countries in terms of whether we can be relied upon to follow through with our promises? What about the impact on potential adversaries who will see a premature withdrawal as confirmation that the US is indeed the paper tiger that Osama had claimed us to be?

If you're worried about the government's budget, there are plenty of places other than the Iraq war effort that you can cut that won't have negative impacts on any of the above.

Since I haven't followed your political positions, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the groupthink thing.

Poor little brainwashed Bushbot. The Bozo in Chief lies us into a war on the order of his Israeli handlers, mismanages said war to the point where defeat is inevitable, and then digs in his heels like some stubborn little toddler refusing to accept the inevitable - while more Americans die every day. Meanwhile, for the Bushbot, the first Dem who stands up and says, "This is a complete, total and stupid waste, and we should get out" is responsible for the defeat.

[TailgateNut]

Poor little brainwashed Bushbot. The Bozo in Chief lies us into a war on the order of his Israeli handlers, mismanages said war to the point where defeat is inevitable, and then digs in his heels like some stubborn little toddler refusing to accept the inevitable - while more Americans die every day. Meanwhile, for the Bushbot, the first Dem who stands up and says, "This is a complete, total and stupid waste, and we should get out" is responsible for the defeat.


That's why dumb**** the clown isn't willing to give in. He wants someone else to give up on this lost cause know as the Iraq Experiment!

[Rohirrim]

The Bush White House seems driven by a secret doctrine that has gotten little public attention: The Doctrine of Two Years Too Late

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/trudy_rubin/20070415_Worldview___Bush_seeing_the_light_-_too_late.html

[TailgateNut]

It also took many republican 2 years to scratch those stupid ass W04 sticker off their windshields and bumpers.

[patteeu]

Poor little brainwashed Bushbot. The Bozo in Chief lies us into a war on the order of his Israeli handlers, mismanages said war to the point where defeat is inevitable, and then digs in his heels like some stubborn little toddler refusing to accept the inevitable - while more Americans die every day. Meanwhile, for the Bushbot, the first Dem who stands up and says, "This is a complete, total and stupid waste, and we should get out" is responsible for the defeat.

More silliness about Bush lies? And of course, it's the Jews who are pulling all the strings. All with a little bit of demagoguery about Americans dying to top it all off. Outstanding! I think you've earned a DU merit badge with this post alone. Who needs LABF anyway?

[The Lone Bolt]

Easy guys. Pat has just been expressing an alternative view rationally and objectively, and in return he's been called a "bushbot" and a "troll". I didn't notice him calling you guys names because you disagree with him.

How about giving the guy a break?

[ant1999e]

Easy guys. Pat has just been expressing an alternative view rationally and objectively, and in return he's been called a "bushbot" and a "troll". I didn't notice him calling you guys names because you disagree with him.

How about giving the guy a break?

You expect different from them?

[TailgateNut]

Easy guys. Pat has just been expressing an alternative view rationally and objectively, and in return he's been called a "bushbot" and a "troll". I didn't notice him calling you guys names because you disagree with him.

How about giving the guy a break?



Get a room!

[Rohirrim]

Easy guys. Pat has just been expressing an alternative view rationally and objectively, and in return he's been called a "bushbot" and a "troll". I didn't notice him calling you guys names because you disagree with him.

How about giving the guy a break?

Really? Asking somebody if they're getting emotional because they're a woman? My guess is that he certainly intended it as an insult. I also consider it an insult when Cheney/Bush and the whole cabal come out calling people who advocate ending the Iraq war "Defeatists" etc. It's an incredibly nasty remark, especially given that the entire war and subsequent defeat in Iraq is totally and completely the responsibility of Bush and his incompetent appointees. Patteau is reciting the Rove talking points verbatim. Doesn't that make him a Bushbot? He's making smug, self-righteous, and insulting comments designed to enflame. Doesn't that make him a troll? This is a message board. Let's not slither around playing lawyer games. The intent of Patteau's garbage is obvious.

[patteeu]

Really? Asking somebody if they're getting emotional because they're a woman? My guess is that he certainly intended it as an insult. I also consider it an insult when Cheney/Bush and the whole cabal come out calling people who advocate ending the Iraq war "Defeatists" etc. It's an incredibly nasty remark, especially given that the entire war and subsequent defeat in Iraq is totally and completely the responsibility of Bush and his incompetent appointees. Patteau is reciting the Rove talking points verbatim. Doesn't that make him a Bushbot? He's making smug, self-righteous, and insulting comments designed to enflame. Doesn't that make him a troll? This is a message board. Let's not slither around playing lawyer games. The intent of Patteau's garbage is obvious.

I wonder if the women of OrangeMane think that being asked if you are a woman is an insult?

How does "surrenderist" work for you? I like it better than "defeatist" even if it's not quite as specifically accurate. If you'd prefer, I can use "committed to failure" or something along those lines.

[Rohirrim]

I wonder if the women of OrangeMane think that being asked if you are a woman is an insult?

Nice backpeddle.

How does "surrenderist" work for you? I like it better than "defeatist" even if it's not quite as specifically accurate. If you'd prefer, I can use "committed to failure" or something along those lines.

So you must believe that if Bush was allowed to carry on unimpeded by anyone or anything, his policies would lead to success in Iraq?

[patteeu]

So you must believe that if Bush was allowed to carry on unimpeded by anyone or anything, his policies would lead to success in Iraq?

I think his policies are more likely to lead to success than those of the people who want to quit. If nothing else, his policies can easily carry us to 2008, at which time we will be electing a new CiC. We aren't in any danger of being routed.

[Atlas]

due to lower dead counts so far. I think I recall who this was, and I didn't respond at the time, because I wouldn't have held my temper, and I'm grateful not to have been in close physical proximity.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9567363

Also, someone else posted on this site that the actual casualties per unit, with a smaller army and guys doing multiple deployments/tours, the casualties per unit are on a par with vietnam.

I saw this

http://www.slate.com/id/2111432

though Slate is perhaps less reliable that whatever stat was tossed out then.

Really that's great. When did the Iraq war end?? Oh it's still going on. I guess comparing it to wars that are over might not really be a good thing to do.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I think his policies are more likely to lead to success than those of the people who want to quit. If nothing else, his policies can easily carry us to 2008, at which time we will be electing a new CiC. We aren't in any danger of being routed.
Your ignorance is astounding at times.

------------------------------------------------
April 18, 2007
Maliki Says Iraq will be under full control by Iraqi forces in January 2008. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070419085234)
Many of the more than 230 Iraqis killed or found dead nationwide a day earlier were buried in quiet ceremonies before Thursday's noon prayer, according to Muslim tradition. Other bodies lay in refrigeration containers, still unidentified, at morgues across Baghdad.

CONT.

[TailgateNut]

I wonder if the women of OrangeMane think that being asked if you are a woman is an insult?

How does "surrenderist" work for you? I like it better than "defeatist" even if it's not quite as specifically accurate. If you'd prefer, I can use "committed to failure" or something along those lines.

To clarify your prejudicial question: I am not a woman, not that it should matter. Your attitude mirrors that of your hero GWB, who uses the same talking points and throws out the same ridiculous accusations.
I question the actions of this administration based on its' actions, not due to its' political affiliation.

[patteeu]

To clarify your prejudicial question: I am not a woman, not that it should matter. Your attitude mirrors that of your hero GWB, who uses the same talking points and throws out the same ridiculous accusations.
I question the actions of this administration based on its' actions, not due to its' political affiliation.

It may be true that some of the things I say are similar to things GWB says, but I have no doubt that if I were to review your posting history we'd find that some of the things you say are similar to the talking points of Osama bin Laden. Are we to presume a cause and effect there too?

I'm not a slave to political affiliation either. I call them like I see them.

[patteeu]

Your ignorance is astounding at times.

That's where we differ. Yours doesn't surprise me at all.

[bendog]

Really that's great. When did the Iraq war end?? Oh it's still going on. I guess comparing it to wars that are over might not really be a good thing to do.

You miss the pt. Someone posted that the Iraq war isn't really all that bad since the army isn't taking too many casualites. First, as the Slate article goes into, that statement appears to be false. The the fact that the particular units taking casualties are smaller than in vietnam (due to rotations and the troop mix of those actually doing the fighting), and the improved medical care reducing fatalities, may mask that the units taking casualties are taking them at Vietnam like rates. And, sometime back, someone else posted a link from a more official dod type site that suggested that. IF that's true, then the volunteer army may be dying out there.

Second, the npr link. Not that anyone's bothered to listen to the fresh air interview, and I haven't seen the film cause I don't have hbo, but I'm looking for it on netflix, the emotional cost may be too high to sustain. More importantly, this country is simply ignoring the human cost, as the post that this thread is in response to, and that shouldn't be allowed. It's cowardly and it disrespects the troops. And, don't take that as some liberal rant "oh save the troops." I pretty much think these guys are tools. I respect the fact that the reason some guy takes shrapnel in his eye, rehabs, and then leaves his family to do a second tour is that he has loyalty to his buds. I respect that, I really do. But he also has loyalty to his family, and even his country, and this war's ****ing up both.

Lastly, the interview makes clear the lengths the military is going to try and provide not just medical, but also psychological and spirtual assistance to not only the wounded but the care providers. That's something tha the media isn't covering either.

[TailgateNut]

It may be true that some of the things I say are similar to things GWB says, but I have no doubt that if I were to review your posting history we'd find that some of the things you say are similar to the talking points of Osama bin Laden. Are we to presume a cause and effect there too?

I'm not a slave to political affiliation either. I call them like I see them.

There's the prime example:"similar to the talking points of Osama bin Laden"
FU! You and the other Jerkoffs believe that just because I don't agree with how this administration is handling the majority of national and international issues, makes me an Osama supporter, opr makes me sound like him.
I Bush were true to his word Osama would be out of the equation, but Bush just used him as a pretense for HIS war!