# Bushbots, since I can't ask for your brains, get yer asses in here... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 14, 2005, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669 "2005-01-14T05:24:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/361 "2005-01-20T00:49:09Z")
I suspect he means “a calling beyond the Stars _and Stripes_”, referring to the flag he’s got himself wrapped in. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/362 "2005-01-20T01:01:32Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I suspect he means “a calling beyond the Stars _and Stripes_”, referring to the flag he’s got himself wrapped in. Nah, I bet he means the big invisable fella. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/363 "2005-01-20T01:02:39Z")
[Oh, the irony!](http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/poll/index.html) Paraphrase: “Poll asking if Bush is divisive divides America in half.” ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/364 "2005-01-20T01:04:42Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I suspect he means “a calling beyond the Stars _and Stripes_”, referring to the flag he’s got himself wrapped in. Ohhh, I hope he means “Stars” like Bill Murray, and “Stripes” like the Bill Murray movie! … Am I obsessing again? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/365 "2005-01-20T01:24:27Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The **SA** ’s and **AQA** ’s of the world claim that’s _good_. Here’s another contortion to be challenged. Cite for my or **AQA** ’s claiming these deaths and injuries are good. We. Never. Said. Any. Such. Fucking. Thing. You. Bozo! Again, I have to thank you **Elvis** , for providing yet another example of the hysterical, ridiculous ways that what we who support the war find our words distorted here. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/366 "2005-01-20T01:27:36Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > …I am sure the Allied pilots enforcing the no-fly zone didn’t flash a happy smile when missles were fired at them, no matter if some people don’t seem to think those missles were a threat to the pilots. I’m sure as well. They probably don’t flash a happy smile when Achmed steps out and flips them the finger (same gesture in Iraq, right?) Then it gets to the Bush spin machine… “Iraqi fires off rude gesture at American pilot” “Iraqi fires off hostile gesture at American pilot.” “Hostile Iraqi fire on American pilot! (Casualty report classified)” C’mon, **Brutus** , the kool-aid ain’t that tasty, is it? 700 shots and not _one_ hit? At least, that’s an exaggeration. Something actually happened, that’s something. Better than the “massive stockpiles” and the intercontinental drones of anthrax doom. Hard to exaggerate what flat doesn’t exist, I’m thinking… But I wouldn’t put it past them. If anybody can do it, they would. And if it anybody could swallow it with a straight face… ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/367 "2005-01-20T01:41:50Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > My first cite is to physics. There is only a finite amount of space out there for the plane and missile to exist in. If the plane and missile exist in the same space at the same time, the missile and plane will collide. Sure, but you’re assuming _if both missile and plane are travelling at fixed trajectories at fixed speeds._ Or, in other words, that the (American) pilot somehow ignores **all** the early-warning indicators that he’s being fired at, and fails to take **any** sort of corrective/evasive countermeasures. **Age Quod Agis,** why do you hate American pilots so much? > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > My second cite is to handguns. You know, the bullets fired by handguns are rarely (if ever) radar guided. Yet they seem to hit their targets quite often. This would be relevant only if the distance from the missile to the aircraft was on a comparable scale – _e.g.,_ 50-500 feet or so. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > As long as we’re asking for cites, would you mind providing one for this (in my opinion, rather incredible) assertion? [As you wish:](http://www.seacoastonline.com/2001news/6_19_w1.htm) > [@](#): > > The Iraqis are so afraid of U.S. anti-radar missiles that they usually fire their missiles without turning on their short-range targeting radar, **giving them little chance of hitting an aircraft,** pilots say. … **More than 200,000 flights have been flown without a single plane damaged.** And I’ll pre-emptively ask you to not try and revise history here – I never said that a blind missile shot could _never_ hit an American jet, only that the odds were damn low. Much like winning the lottery… ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/368 "2005-01-20T01:50:03Z")
Excuse me, but I seem to remember hearing or reading that Iraqi radar was what coalition aircraft used to zero in on and destroy the facilites from which they were being fired on. Why has no one else commented on it? Did I dream it? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/369 "2005-01-20T02:26:03Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > And I’ll pre-emptively ask you to not try and revise history here – I never said that a blind missile shot could _never_ hit an American jet, only that the odds were damn low. Much like winning the lottery… And I’ll retroactively ask you to not revise history here. You said: > [@](#): > > Without the radar, Saddam would have had better odds of winning the Superball Lottery than of hitting an American flyover, and any pilot competent enough to get his jet into the air could easily evade such an “attack.” Your cite says that we haven’t had a _casualty_ in 200,000 flights. It does not say that the odds of a missile hitting an American flight are anywhere near the millions and millions to one of the Superball Lottery (for example, the odds of winning the Texas lotto are [1 in 47,784,352](http://www.justlottery.com/tx/texas-games.html)), nor does it say that any competent pilot could “easily” evade such an attack. Let’s not confuse correlation with causation. Just because it’s been a couple hundred thousand laps since the last F1 casualty doesn’t mean that any competent driver who could get his/her car in gear could avoid the wall at 200 mph. And lest we confuse the tenor of your excerpt with the tenor of the article you cited, please see the following from your cite: > [@](#): > > Iraqi gunners are opening fire almost every day, according to American pilots, and experts say Saddam has beefed up his missile forces with Chinese and possibly Yugoslav help. > \ > “With every day that goes by, the odds … of losing an aircraft go up,” said Col. Maury Forsyth, the U.S. officer who draws up the allied flight plans for the northern no-fly zone. > \ > Saddam “is doing everything he can to shoot us down,” Forsyth added. > > Forsyth said the Iraqis have continually been shooting during his 22 months in command of the aircraft. > \ > Pilots say the shooting is constant. > > “It seems like you see a gunner almost everywhere in the no-fly zone,” said Navy Cmdr. Tom Tack of Allen Park, Mich. > > Iraq has apparently ordered its gunners to shoot as much as possible in order to down an American aircraft, according to experts. > \ > “We’ve been very fortunate that we’ve not had a loss,” Rumsfeld said at the time. “The risk grows to the extent that other nations assist Iraq in strengthening its military capabilities, its air defense capabilities.” > > The radar network would give Iraqi commanders an overall picture of the allied flights and help them direct anti-aircraft fire. The surveillance radar that watches planes is located outside the no-fly zone. > [etc.] Certainly, your quotes are accurate, and the pilots felt the chances that they’d be hit were slim, but your cite does not support your outrageous assertions. Nor do I think there’s much to say for the argument that taking even a one in a million chance to kill an American pilot is no big deal. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/370 "2005-01-20T02:29:26Z")
[Astronomical Odds](http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/perseids_shower_sidebar_000809.html), Deadlier than Iraqi Missiles: > [@](#): > > On June 21, 1994, Jose Martin of Spain was driving with his wife near Madrid when a 3-pound (1.4-kilogram) meteor crashed through his windshield, bent the steering wheel and ended up in the back seat. Martin suffered a broken finger while his wife was uninjured. ---
**Author:** ![peri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/67e7ee/32.png) [@peri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peri)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/371 "2005-01-20T03:17:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Au contraire (to practically everything you’ve said, as a matter of fact). **I don’t recall ever hearing the administration stating that we were going to war in order to help the Iraqi people.** You’ve mentioned this “goal” or “rationalization” before. From whence doth it come, pray tell? > > Helping the people of Iraq is certainly icing on the cake, **but do you really contend that GWB went before the American people and stated we were going to go to war with Iraq in order to “help” the Iraqi people?** My post was in direct response to the bolded words. No one has claimed the _only_ reason we went to war was to help the Iraqis. In the weeks leading up to the invasion, helping the Iraqi people was intimately tied in with the removal of Saddam Hussein. As the invasion began, President Bush stated a goal of the war was to liberate the Iraqi people and help them achieve “a united, stable and free country.” This was not the only one stated, but it was deemed an important enough goal to be the second one mentioned in the first sentence of his news conference when he informed the nation we were at war. So, yes, a major part of our mission in Iraq, as stated repeatedly by President Bush, _was to help the Iraqi people._ Whether it is was the defining goal is irrelevant. For better or worse, the administration has run with the term Iraqi Freedom and put liberation on the same level as the removal of Hussein. Furthermore, this was not only put in front of the American people, but the world at large: [Press conference with President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, President Aznar, and Prime Minister Barroso - the Azores, Portugal](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030316-3.html)(prewar) > [@](#): > > Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq’s liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people. We will supply humanitarian relief, bring economic sanctions to a swift close, and work for the long-term recovery of Iraq’s economy. We’ll make sure that Iraq’s natural resources are used for the benefit of their owners, the Iraqi people. [Statement of the Atlantic Summit: A Vision for Iraq and the Iraqi People](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030316-1.html) (prewar) > [@](#): > > In these circumstances, we would undertake a solemn obligation to help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors. The Iraqi people deserve to be lifted from insecurity and tyranny, and freed to determine for themselves the future of their country. We envisage a unified Iraq with its territorial integrity respected. All the Iraqi people – its rich mix of Sunni and Shiite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomen, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and all others – should enjoy freedom, prosperity, and equality in a united country. We will support the Iraqi people’s aspirations for a representative government that upholds human rights and the rule of law as cornerstones of democracy. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/372 "2005-01-20T05:42:13Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > And I’ll retroactively ask you to not revise history here. You said:Your cite says that we haven’t had a _casualty_ in 200,000 flights. It does not say that the odds of a missile hitting an American flight are anywhere near the millions and millions to one of the Superball Lottery US fighter jet. Velocity: supersonic. Altitude: High. Maneuverability: High. Missile: Unguided. There is a **lot** of sky. And although shooting someone with a gun at close range is easy, shooting something far away is much harder. Shooting something, moving, far away is much harder. Shooting something far away that’s moving and has the time to react to the flight path of your bullet is damn near impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/373 "2005-01-20T06:04:29Z")
First of all, we’re not dealing with the whole sky. We’re dealing with the specific portion of sky in which the American or British plane is flying, because that’s where the bullets and/or missiles are aimed. Second, you’d have no problem with me getting a few missiles and an anti-aircraft gun battery, going out to Iraq, and shooting at American and British planes as they flew past? You think the pilots should just shrug it off – “That kooky **AQA** down there having fun again”? Come on. I just can’t believe you guys really mean this. I realize you think there’s an argument to be made here, but not all possible arguments should be made. Some are just too ridiculous and short-sighted. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/374 "2005-01-20T06:09:51Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > First of all, we’re not dealing with the whole sky. We’re dealing with the specific portion of sky in which the American or British plane is flying, because that’s where the bullets and/or missiles are aimed. Ever walked through the woods using a compass to guide you? Know how off track you get if you’re off by a half of a degree and you take enough steps in that direction? How far off target does a missile get if it’s half a degree off and traveling tens of thousands of feet? > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Second, you’d have no problem with me getting a few missiles and an anti-aircraft gun battery, going out to Iraq, and shooting at American and British planes as they flew past? You think the pilots should just shrug it off – “That kooky **AQA** down there having fun again”? Um, no. I’d have problems with that. Because the intent does matter. But the fact is you’d be very unlikely to hit anything. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Come on. I just can’t believe you guys really mean this. I realize you think there’s an argument to be made here, but not all possible arguments should be made. Some are just too ridiculous and short-sighted. Mine is simply one of pragmatics and truth. The missiles were fired with murderous intent. But they also weren’t a very credible threat to our pilots. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/375 "2005-01-20T07:39:43Z")
Having worked on classified air-defense systems and being very well-acquainted with the flight performance statistics and offensive/defensive capabilities of many of the aircraft used by the US military, I’ll simply offer my not-classified assertion that **Age Quod Agis** is talking out of his posterior. Yes, there was an incredibly unlikely small chance that a blind Iraqi missile shot could shoot down an America jet, even if that’d largely require the pilot to be wearing a blindfold, have cotton in his ears, and both arms tied behind his back. But only a Bush apologist would consider this highly improbable scenario as just cause for a Damn Fool War™. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/376 "2005-01-20T07:57:49Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Come on. I just can’t believe you guys really mean this. I realize you think there’s an argument to be made here, but not all possible arguments should be made. Some are just too ridiculous and short-sighted. Well there _are_ those who are willing to argue that a little bit of tension over the US imposed no fly zones posed a significant enough threat to justify full scale invasion. Talk about straw-grasping! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/377 "2005-01-20T11:28:40Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Here’s another contortion to be challenged. Cite for my or **AQA** ’s claiming these deaths and injuries are good. You don’t even read your _own_ crap, do you? You’re asserting that the current situation is preferable to the previous one, therefore the _tradeoff_ (NOT the deaths and injuries) was a good one. > [@Brutus](#): > > I am sure the Allied pilots enforcing the no-fly zone didn’t flash a happy smile when missles were fired at them, no matter if some people don’t seem to think those missles were a threat to the pilots. Nobody said they weren’t a threat at all, but you’re saying that constituted a threat to the US. “Some people” even claim that was part of a “grave and growing threat”. “Some people” have nothing left to justify their absolute support of this folly. Since you mention it: How happy are the smiles of the soldiers and marines who are getting _actually_ attacked something like 100 times a day and rising? How happy are the smiles of the bereaved families? How happy are the smiles of the amputees at Walter Reed? Maybe they _are_ happy; they lived and they’re out of it. > [@SA](#): > > yet another example of the hysterical, ridiculous ways that what we who support the war find our words distorted here. Yet we’re not claiming that an actual war with actual deaths and maimings, is better than a hypothetical war with hypothetical deaths and maimings. Go figure, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/378 "2005-01-20T13:53:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You don’t even read your _own_ crap, do you? You’re asserting that the current situation is preferable to the previous one, therefore the _tradeoff_ (NOT the deaths and injuries) was a good one. Pardon me for taking your words at face value. You said: “The threat to Americans, to the extent it even existed, was traded for the reality of 1300+ dead, roughly 6000 permanently maimed. **The SA’s and AQA’s of the world claim that’s good**.” Sure sounds to me like you’re claiming we think the injuries and deaths are good. Obviously, I recognize that death and injury are an unfortunate part of war; it doesn’t mean I think they are good. The war was necessary in order to prevent the liklihood of even more death and injury in the future. And the war is resulting in fewer Iraqi deaths by virtue of its own government as we speak. This, to me, is what is good. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/379 "2005-01-20T14:39:02Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > The war was necessary in order to prevent the liklihood of even more death and injury in the future. This is what flings your argument out the window. If you take a moment to think, you’ll find it will only result in _more_ death and destruction in the future. In waking a “premptive war”, we’ve set a bad precident. Don’t forget that it cuts both ways. Shit, couldn’t Iran technically attack us using the same logic because we pose a threat to them? Coiuldn’t NK? Can’t India attack Pakistan? China retake Taiwan? Any country can now use “um…yeah…\…they’re threatening us with the terrorism and all, we need to attack”. So we’ve opened up any country in the world being able to wage war without provication, thanks to us, and this is a good thing? Next, let’s talk about preventing death in the future. I strongly believe that in waging this war, we’ve created more terrorists then we’ve eliminated. We’ve given the next group of jihadists some nice hands on battlezone training (like the mujaheeden in Afghanistan got), that is above and beyond what they would get running through some tires at OBL’s training camp. Thanks to blowing up civilians willy nilly, a new generation of American haters is being breed as we speak. Each kid who is orphaned, or had a friend blown to pieces, will grow up chanting “death to America”. Simply put, we’d be better off (futurewise) if we hadn’t gone in. > [@](#): > > And the war is resulting in fewer Iraqi deaths by virtue of its own government as we speak. > > This, to me, is what is good. What isn’t good is that Iraqis are still dying at the same clip as if SH remained in power. Of course because it’s not the government doing the killing, everything is peachy keen. That’s really the sad part, you guys sit around playiung little word games, trying to convince themselves that things are really better then they were under SH. The new governemnt is killling less people the the one we overthrew, yay, we win! (pssst, just as many people are dying, but instead of blaiming SH, now they blame us. WE LOSE) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/380 "2005-01-20T15:14:34Z")
To quote myself, with bolding added for the benefit of slow learners: “The threat to Americans, to the extent it even existed, was **traded for** the reality of 1300+ dead, roughly 6000 permanently maimed. The SA’s and AQA’s of the world claim **that’s** good.” See what the antecedent of “that” is now? Go back and reread it, slowly, if it still isn’t clear. Got it now? Good. Now fuck off. > [@](#): > > The war was necessary in order to prevent the liklihood of even more death and injury in the future. Explain that. The death and injury count is much higher now, as any number greater than zero would be. > [@](#): > > And the war is resulting in fewer Iraqi deaths by virtue of its own government as we speak. Iraq has its own government now? Where did you get that idea from? The same source that made you think Iraq represented a grave and gathering threat to the US? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669.md?page=20)