How many deaths will it take in Iraq?

[dragonlady]

That's the question a caller asked of the conservaive guest on Wisconsin Public Radio today who had just explained how the Democrats have been saying the same thing over and over--they're against the war--and according to him they'd made their point, it's just political theater, and they should stop repeating it. The caller said, "How many deaths will be enough before you admit it's a failure? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Please give me a number." The guest of course went into the ususal Republican spin that's become so familiar. The war wasn't handled properly at the beginning, but recent information shows there is some progress, and so forth. They know they can't defend the entire mess, so they sacrifice a little from the beginning and hope we'll go along with what they want currently. But the caller was spot on. We have to keep talking about the failed war until people stop dying in it. (And that includes the Iraqis.)

[shadowknows69]

1. Vietnam set the benchmark for bad wars

as long as we don't get near 30,000 or so the war machine will keep turning.

[shadowknows69]

2. problem with that of course is

that we really DO have nearly 30,000 deaths if you count the "survivors" put back together like Frankenstein's monster by modern medicine. Most people would agree, living is better. I wonder if some of these permanently broken warriors will agree.

[mediaman007]

3. Sooner or later, the driving instructor tells the student to pull over and

stop. That's a lot of nerve to think that the first couple of years in this war don't count. Dead is dead.

[jgraz]

4. How many what?

Deaths? Those aren't deaths, they're commas. It's just a number, right Tony? :boring:

[shadowknows69]

5. Unfortunately for Mr. Snow

he'll more than likely become a comma before this war is over and he'll go to his grave spreading its lies.

[jojo54]

6. As many as there will be for the next

549 days, 13 hours and 35 minutes.

Or, until Congress gets a backbone and impeaches the SOB.