|The real cost of Duyba's and the boyz lies and misadventures||critmass|
Aug 1, 2003 10:19 AM
|293 grieving families.
U.S. deaths in July: 45
Deaths since "Bring Them On" day (7/2): 44
Aug 1, 2003 11:11 AM
|You know, If I walked into a bar, and there was trouble, and I did not have to fight, but I could send other people to do the fighting for me, I would also say bring them on.....
So on that note, have you read any of Col. Hackworths books. Very good reading might I add.
Anyway, politicians should sit in the trenches with m16's. Then see how many wars they start.
What has this cost 'W' nothing ...... ?
Aug 1, 2003 11:43 AM
|The structure of the military has been the same for 1000s of years. Long before the U.S. was born.
Conflict is part of human nature, it'll never go away.
Aug 1, 2003 1:21 PM
|I'll quote Hackworth as Dubya was lying us into this: "In no way does the situation in Iraq affect my country's security. I know war is not a blood sport, as cable news make it out to be. Cheney and Bush and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, they've never faced the elephant. These are the people who gush for war."
But then Gen. Schwarzkorf didn't believe what Dubya and Rummy and the boyz were saying then either.
|i second that. "About Face" is one of the best books i've read.||EpicX|
Aug 2, 2003 6:44 PM
|it's an amazing story. giant book, but you'll read it in record time because you can't put it down.|
|Speaking of the "Bring'em on" comment||MR_GRUMPY|
Aug 1, 2003 11:45 AM
|There was a cartoon that was censored out of the Tribune a few weeks ago. Here it is.|
|It's only a flesh wound!...come back and fight you coward!-nm||ColnagoFE|
Aug 1, 2003 12:50 PM
|I know that one! I know that one!||Live Steam|
Aug 1, 2003 2:21 PM
|First Peasant: Who's that there?
Second Peasant: I don't know... Must be a king.
First Peasant: Why?
Second Peasant: He hasn't got sh!t all over him.
Black Knight: None shall pass.
Black Knight: None shall pass.
Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge.
Black Knight: Then you shall die.
Arthur: I command you as King of the Britons to stand aside!
Black Knight: I move for no man.
Arthur: So be it!
Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's left arm.
Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch.
Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't.
Arthur: Well, what's that then?
Black Knight: I've had worse.
Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on you pansy!
Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's right arm.
Arthur: Victory is mine! We thank thee Lord, that in thy mercy...
Black Knight: Come on then.
Black Knight: Have at you!
Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
Black Knight: Just a flesh wound.
Arthur: Look, stop that.
Black Knight: Chicken! Chicken!
Arthur: Look, I'll have your leg. Right!
Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's leg.
Black Knight: Right, I'll do you for that!
Arthur: You'll what?
Black Knight: Come 'ere!
Arthur: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I'm invincible!
Arthur: You're a loony.
Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.
Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's other leg.
Black Knight: All right; we'll call it a draw.
Arthur: Come, Patsy.
Black Knight: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastard! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
|very unfortunate, but they died for a very good reason||DougSloan|
Aug 2, 2003 7:44 PM
|The have helped to rid the world of evil psychos who have murdered thousands:
I hate the fact that Americans have died. However, they have done so for a good reason.
|old, and pathetic, justification nm||rufus|
Aug 3, 2003 7:19 AM
|very unfortunate, but they died for a very good reason||Duane Gran|
Aug 3, 2003 10:11 AM
|I'm not going to bite the carrot and say they died for no good reason, because honestly we can't know the answer to that question. However, I think there is no shortage of "bad guys" in the world. As an example, there is a massacre of people in southern Sudan that easily rivals the publicized exploits of Uday. I could name other places like Sudan that for all purposes don't exist on the map of US foreign relations, but should if we want to be consistent in our role as the worldwide police force.|
|can't do everything||DougSloan|
Aug 3, 2003 10:42 AM
|As the Liberal contingent is so fond of arguing, "Just because we can't do everything, should we do nothing?" We only have so many resources and can only stretch them so far. I think we do need to pick the most important issues, though.
Saddam's regime presented several reasons for removal. Among them, his and his followers' undeniable atrocities upon mankind. In my book, that alone justifies removing them, regardless of whether we can or should do the same throughout the entire planet.
The only differences between Hitler/Nazi Germany and Saddam are scale and motive. Hitler killed far more, largely with a motive of authoritarianism and ethnic/racial "cleansing" (a term I despise, but it seems to be the apt description). Saddam's people have killed fewer, but in addtion to authoritarianism, they appear to have killed for mere entertainment and to eliminate competition for the women they would rape, even on their wedding nights.
That is so horrific, I can't even imagine the slightest opposition to removing, and yes, killing, them. That is why it deep down really, really irritates me to see people questioning or attacking the actions taken in Iraq, in light of the overwhelming evidence of atrocities. I only imagine that the best motives of those people are political gain, and the most dubious tolerance for Saddam's atrocities.
|can't do everything||Duane Gran|
Aug 4, 2003 10:45 AM
|That is so horrific, I can't even imagine the slightest opposition to removing, and yes, killing, them. That is why it deep down really, really irritates me to see people questioning or attacking the actions taken in Iraq, in light of the overwhelming evidence of atrocities. I only imagine that the best motives of those people are political gain, and the most dubious tolerance for Saddam's atrocities.
You bring up a good point, and there is a possibility that things will be better in Iraq without Uday and Qusay, but I don't think the opposition boils down to politics or endorsement of atrocity. The fact remains that the American public was sold on this war because we were lead to believe that Iraq posed a threat to American lives and peace. I didn't buy it then, but I have tried to give the benefit of the doubt to the administration, who has much better information than I have. Today I can't see how anyone would regard the former Iraqi regime as a threat to Americans, hence the brutality of the regime to its own people has been highlighted. Sure, that is a valid concern, but it isn't the purpose for which the war was waged.
|Duane I would like to know what you think||Live Steam|
Aug 4, 2003 11:18 AM
|about my post below. Do you think my point has some validity? Could our leaders know much more and are not telling us? Could it be that Iraq was just a reason to insert our military into a region that may be ready to explode under the Islamic terrorists that are pushing from within?|
|very unfortunate, but they died for a very good reason||critmass|
Aug 3, 2003 11:15 AM
|For Luke's sake I can only hope that in 17 years the war built on exaggerations, half-truths, lies and political agendas is being waged by a political party you disagree with. But then, just maybe, Luke will be more of a free thinker. Your dismissal, in a past post, of Ray-Gun Ronnie's and daddy Bush's providing Iraq with it's WMD with the one word answer Iran and then saying politics is a dirty business shows your blind dedication to political propaganda. There are many more and better people, than you, living in dictator controlled countries that can fully sympathize with the terror the Iraqi people have dealt with that aren't rid of that oppression simply because it's not in our political and economic interest. It appalls me to hear someone who has never fought dismiss with callous political propaganda spin the deaths of U.S. service members or this countries complicity with terror. Since you have already taken the position that telling someone to move to another country isn't a personal attack I think that you Doug and of course Ashcrotch would feel more comfortable moving to 1937 Germany.
FWIW, IMHO my 2 cents or as my beloved intelligent prez would say "HUH"
|that makes no sense at all||DougSloan|
Aug 3, 2003 11:34 AM
|First, personalizing this about my son is ludicrous and generally not a argument tactic that is appropriate. Of course I don't want my son to die. However, if he volunteered to enter the armed forces and died eliminating a genocidal dictator's regime, I would be at the same time horribly distraught and extremely proud that he chose to do something with his life that 99.99% of that planet never does -- put his life on the line for the freedom and lives of others.
Regardless of the past, Saddam needed to be eliminated. Go ahead and blame whomever you wish. Fact is, though, he needed to be gone. Period.
I have no idea what your reference to "many more and better people, than you, living in dictator controlled countries...". That makes no sense. While the personal attack on my value is understood (and you could have done that more plainly -- why not just call me name and get it out in the open?), still, you insinuate the because we are not solving all the world's problems, then our motive for this one must have been suspect. I doesn't make sense.
I also reject the attempt to attack me or my credibility on the basis that I "have never fought." Are you saying everyone who has not personally "fought" has no valid opinion? Are you saying that everyone who has fought automatically has a superior opinion?
The pinnacle of your hyperbole and misunderstanding is your second to last sentence attempting to link Ashcroft and me to Nazis. You really don't get it. I'll just speak for myself, though. I am supporting the decision to REMOVE A GENOCIDAL DICTATOR; while you apparently would have permitted a genocidal dictator to continue murdering. If ever there were a justification for a "HUH?" this is it.
|Might I remind you, Doug...||Jon Billheimer|
Aug 3, 2003 12:22 PM
|that the leader that you so unquestioningly support did not attack Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy. In case you've forgotten already, he attacked Iraq because Iraq was a clear and imminent threat to the U.S. because of his arsenal of WMDs and because of his reconstituted nuclear program, none of which has been demonstrated to have been true. Furthermore, if you're going to justify this war on the basis of Saddam's body count, there are several African situations that dwarf Iraq in scope of sheer evil and genocide. It would appear to me that your support of the Bush agenda is based on factors other than Bush's own rationalizations and the facts of the case.
For a self-confessed libertarian you demonstrate a curious lack of critical thinking when it comes to this administration. As well your support of a government which is authoritarian, intrudes into the lives of individual Americans, and appears to lack respect for the constitution's safeguards for individual rights is puzzling.
|not at all||DougSloan|
Aug 3, 2003 1:10 PM
|My position has nothing to do with post hoc support for Bush. I argued here well before the war the same justifications. In fact, after 1991 I argued that Saddam should have been removed, and continued to argue that during the Clinton administration; in other words, get it over with. WMDs were not at all the sole justification expressed by Bush, either. To argue that is to create a stawman to be attacked by the apparent lack of evidence of WMDs.
Again, I have repeatedly addressed the Africa arguments. Are you saying that we really should attack these countries? (Can you commit?) Or, are you saying that if we attack anyone, we should have gone there first? (priorities) Or, do you really not want anyone attacked, and are simply attacking the war's supporters' motives by questioning the desire to go to Iraq before Africa? Or, as I have said, are you making the argument that we cannot intervene anywhere on the planet unless we are prepared to correct all of the world's problems? This argument has been vollied about without any explanation. The issue is not whether we should intervene somewhere else. The issue is whether we should have intervened in Iraq. Any discussion of Africa is a total red herring. It's like telling the court that you should be excused from speeding because someone else was going faster. Cops can't stop everone -- are you saying that there should be *no* enforcement or that Saddam "wasn't speeding"? That's exactly what this argument means.
No doubt there were many motives, expressed and unexpressed, for attacking Iraq. My point is that all it takes is one good one to justify it.
Don't give me this crap about lack of critical thinking. How much critical thinking do the opponents of Bush give to tolerating a genocidal dictator? Your so-called "critical thinking" would have resulted in Saddam and sons raping and murdering people to this day, right? Admit that. If not for Bush, *right this minute* there would be people being murdered and raped, and Bush's opponents would be permitting it. Uday would be sitting by some lion cage watching some poor soul having his carcass devoured alive by a lion, all the while he laughs and locates his next rape victim and then decapitates her boyfriend or husband. Make no mistake about it -- that is *exactly* what the result of inaction would have been.
This charge of authoritarian government is total bs. Our country was literally blown apart by a group of psychotic religous zealots with stated intentions to destroy the United States people and our way of life. People here demanded the government do something about it, including capturing those responsible, preventing it from re-occuring, and gladly tolerate inconvenience and potentially infringement of privacy at airports in exchange for fewer deaths and returned confidence of people in the travel industry so that the airlines would not die as well and the economy would not suffer worse than it had already begun to before 9/11. Show me even 1 court decision indicating that there have been Constitutional violations by this so-called authoritarian goverment. Better yet, show me court decisions that indicate this administration is any different than the Clinton administration when it comes to the operation of the Justice Department. Janet Reno was no Libertarian herself. Or, barring any real evidence of Constitutional infringements, at least tell us about any personal experience with this Justice Department infringing upon your rights or anyone you know. Generalized allegations parroted from the Guardian are easy to spew here; real evidence to back it up is something else.
As an alternative, just admit that you and many others here simply hate the fact that Bush, not "your guy", is in office, and you'll simply say anything possible to attack him. Being partisan is ok. Millions of people are. Many people readily admit to it. There's no need to hind behind a claim of intellectual or moral superiority when the true motive is partisanship.
|i find your justifications equally disingenuous||rufus|
Aug 4, 2003 6:41 AM
|why did we attack to remove saddam now? he always was a bad man, we always knew that, and yet, for years, we did nothing. despite your one word excuse "iran", ronald reagan did nothing to stop saddam from killing his own people, and in fact, gave him intelligence, bio and chemical stock, and weapons, to enable him to do so. up until 1991, so did bushI. it didn't seem to bother us at that time that he was killing people, in fact, we were trying to make oil and other economic deals with him, even sending rummy to meet with him. nor did it bother us that somoza, noriega, the shah, or any of our two bit dictators engage in the same activities.
in fact saddam can be said to engage in killing those he saw as rebelling against his rule. he was putting down rebellions, and yes, he killed many people doing so. it's ugly, and horrible, but as you yourself have said, politics can be ugly. but as i said, we didn't seem to care. not even in 1991, after we urged the shiites to stand up and rebel against saddam, and then stood idly by while he slaughtered them. can you see why they may not trust us, and question or intentions?
so we've had over 30 years of saddam's rule and no us administration seemed too concerned about the people he was killing. we armed him so he could kill more effectively, and on a greater scale. so you can't claim his atrocities toward his own people were the reason we went to take him out.
you're right, the bush administration put forth many reasons for attacking iraq. in fact, the reasons changed from day to day, week to week. but the reason given why we had to act now, and not a year or two from now, was that saddam's wmd's, particularly his pursuit of a nuclear capacity, posed a clear and imminent threat to the safety of the untited states. not just to his neighbors, or to israel, but to the united states.so far, no evidence produced has shown that to be the truth.
.i don't expect the united states to solve all the world's problems. but if by this war the president has introduced a new doctrine of pre-emption, that releasing millions of citizen's from a dictator's tyranny is justification for a war, then these standards should be applied uniformly, or not at all. in for a penny, or in for a pound. or we realize, and accept however begrudgingly, that there a lot of evil men in this world, but sadly, it is not our position to play judge,jury and executioner. politics is ugly, you said. so is live in the third world. you still haven't answered why irag, and not the congo, or somewhere else. why should we have intervened in iraq, when there are men even more despicable than the hussein's in power elsewhere. you said if we didn't, that people would still be murdered and raped today. well guess what, they still are, just not by the hussein brothers. what underlying circumstances made dead iraqis more important to this administration than dead africans, or dead koreans? could it be oil? could it be the fact that saddam tried to have shrub's daddy killed? could it be the opportunity to create a vast us military presence in the middle east? could it be the neo-con's plan to move the base of us power in the region from saudi arabia to the new democratic iraq? and with iraqi oil flowing, now we can afford to tell the saudis to f#*k off.
maybe not the president, but many of the people in this administration have been pushing to invade iraq since the 1990's. cheney, perle, wolfowitz, rumsfeld, and probably dozens more in the pentagon and nsa. wolfie was even calling the media one day after 9/11 telling them they had to tie that to iraq somehow. in early 2002, bush himself said to his staff, "f#@k saddam, we're taking him out". they were ready to go, and 9/11 provided that excuse, by cloaking their ambitions as part of the war against terrorism.
really, if you think george bush, or cheney or rummy, gives a flying f%$k about poor terrorized iraqi citizens, you are far more nai
|ignore what I have to say, listen to Lieberman or Clinton||DougSloan|
Aug 3, 2003 1:32 PM
|Moreover, said Sen. Joe, "nothing we have learned since the end of the conflict should make us doubt that we were right to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and protect America and the rest of the world from his aggression."
Is Joe partisan or blindly supporting Bush?
Or, maybe Bill Clinton is a partisan Bush supporter:
From the outset, former President Bill Clinton has been forthright in his support of his successor's policy in Iraq.
As he noted in a recent interview, he'd ordered bombing in Iraq himself precisely because of concerns that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction.
"When I left office," he added, "there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for" - material that Saddam, under U.N. resolutions, was required to disclose.
If Democrats, in their eagerness to deflate Bush's approval ratings, continue to press this issue with irresponsible rhetoric, they'll be damaging not only their electoral hopes but the ability of any president to conduct a genuine, bipartisan and effective foreign policy.
As Clinton said, "We should be pulling for America on this."
I rest my case.
|state of the union speeches||DougSloan|
Aug 3, 2003 2:25 PM
|Clinton's State of the Union speech in 1999:
For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligations to destroy its weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them. America will continue to contain Saddam, and we will work for the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
ALSO, from Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, as evidence that WMD's (while emphasized) were NOT the only consideration:
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
So, the President did, in fact, discuss human rights, murder, rape, and liberation as a justification for removing Saddam. Did people conveniently forget that?
|You know none of that matters to ....||Live Steam|
Aug 4, 2003 8:32 AM
|the Bush hating lefties. It wouldn't matter what he said. They pick and choose what they want to hear.
My personal belief is that the war was for far more reasons than we will know for quite a while and I don't mean oil, though destabilization of the world economy through "oil terrorism" is worth fighting to prevent.
I said it before the war started that the war was a shot across the bow for other nations and Iraq was the perfect whipping boy. It appears, from the little we know about the 9/11 report, that Saudi Arabia has been less than forthcoming about their desires. Syria and Iran are also tinderboxes. Iraq puts us in the middle of the region we need to be most concerned about. NK is China's problem for the most part.
These issues and concerns could not have been expressed to the American people without starting a firestorm. Iraq was ripe and easy because of the position they put themselves in. I feel for the families of the men and women who gave all, but their service was voluntary. The same goes for the men and women of the NYFD and NYPD. More of them, thus far, gave their all vs the loses in Iraq. Not justification, but just a sad reminder that, in these new and uncertain times, one need not be on the front in some foreign land to be considered a causality of war.
|that makes no sense at all||critmass|
Aug 3, 2003 12:38 PM
|First, since posting this the other day Centcom has reported the following
8/2 A homemade bomb exploded under a convoy killing two American soliders and their interpreter.
8/2 One U.S. soldier was killed and three wounded in a RPG attack on a convoy.
8/1 U.S. soldier dies from gunshot wound suffered on July 30th.
The reason I personalized it for you is to try and shake you from your disingenuous attitudes. You continue to, conveniently, disregard complicity and the real political and economic reasons for these kinds of wars. Whether a person has fought or not is important. If you haven't, you have no idea of the real terror and the kinds of death that you are sending young men and women to face. I'm appalled at those that are so righteous about the truth of their political parties propaganda that the deaths of our young men and women are just cold calculations or simplistic abstract arguments on boards like this.
In 1937 Germany in articles like the "Power of Speech" by Frauenfeld, "The work of Party Propaganda in War" and "Political Propaganda as Moral Duty" by Josef Wells you will clearly see your words on this subject and Ashcrotch's words on why we need the restrictions of our liberties. Find a copy of Ashcrotch's speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention on Feb 19, 2002 and you will see overwhelming similarities to Wells.
Aug 3, 2003 1:19 PM
|A couple of things.
First, tell us about the restrictions on your liberties. Have there been any, other than having to show someone your underwear at the airport?
Second, admit that inaction would have resulted in the extreme, very extreme, violations of any human rights in Iraq, to the point of rapes, murders, and millions of people not concerned about things like unreasonable searches of their internet e-mail, but deprivations of any liberties and life itself. I'd like to see even one opponent of Bush come out and admit the following:
"The certain result of inaction in Iraq would have meant that millions of human beings would be living in constant fear that they or their family members would be jailed, tortured, raped, and murdered." Go ahead. I dare anyone to have the balls to admit it.
Aug 3, 2003 2:50 PM
|I see you are trying hard to take the subject away from your disingenuous attitudes. Try section 215 of the patriot act or the wiretap statute (Title III) or the bank secrecy act or the pen registar and trap and trace statute or the right to financial privacy act or the family education rights and privacy act and do some looking into what is being done to restrict information, not just porn either, at our libraries. That should keep you busy for awhile. Be sure and come back and tell us that all those rights are nothing to worry about cuz Ashcrotch and the boyz think it's all for the better of the STATE. Your argument about the millions in Iraq in fear is also just a weak deflection from the real point. I don't think Dubya and the boyz give one wit about the lives of the Iraqi's. Just like Ray-Gun Ronnie and daddy Bush didn't care about them when Saddam used American chemicals and gas on them, the Kurds and the Iranians. I think it's naive of you to think that. My point, the one I started this thread with, is that we have lost 293 and now 297 young men and women for a war that is NOT about the Iraqi people!
But then your one of the true believers of the propaganda aren't you. If Bush speechwriters wrote it, it must be true.
Aug 3, 2003 3:25 PM
|Has anything illegal or unconstitutional been done? Are these duly passed laws unconstitutional? Has anyone broken the law?
My sole point, really, is that these soldiers died for a good cause, all bs politics aside. Read my others messages -- at least Joe Lieberman agrees, and last I heard he's not on the Bush speech writing staff.
|Re-post: It wasn't getting any attention :O)||Live Steam|
Aug 4, 2003 9:01 AM
|My personal belief is that the war was for far more reasons than we will know for quite a while and I don't mean oil, though destabilization of the world economy through "oil terrorism" is worth fighting to prevent.
I said it before the war started that the war was a shot across the bow for other nations and Iraq was the perfect whipping boy. It appears, from the little we know about the 9/11 report, that Saudi Arabia has been less than forthcoming about their desires. Syria and Iran are also tinderboxes. Iraq puts us in the middle of the region we need to be most concerned about for obvious reasons. NK is China's problem for the most part.
These issues and concerns could not have been expressed to the American people without starting a firestorm and possibly WW3. Iraq was ripe and easy because of the position they put themselves in. I feel for the families of the men and women who gave all, but their service was voluntary. The same goes for the men and women of the NYFD and NYPD. More of them, thus far, gave their all vs the loses in Iraq. Not justification, but just a sad reminder that, in these new and uncertain times, one need not be on the front in some foreign land to be considered a causality of war.
|No takers here?||Live Steam|
Aug 4, 2003 3:12 PM
|No one want to comment on the possibility that the Iraq war was about something larger than oil or WMD? I think it is about stemming the proliferation of Islamic extremism. I think the administration used Iraq to insert us in a region that is becoming ever more dangerous to western idealism. I believe the 9/11 report ties Saudi money to this which makes it "state sponsored" terrorism. We could have gone into Saudi Arabia, but that would have been much more difficult from many perspectives. The Iraqi proposition was much more explainable and sends almost the same message to these radical states that - they must get themselves in line or face similar "regime change". Remember that term? That is the catch phrase the Bush administration wants the Saudi royal family and others to hear and hear well.|| |