U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 1,000

[Hapless]

show me a quote where Bush says that there might not be a War in Iraq and refutate that he didn't won money with the War.

Umm, what?

 

[Hapless]

I would add hapless, a well thought out contingency is one thing, but drawing up war plans to fullfill an idealogical agenda is another. I'll point you here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

You may very well recognize some of the members of this group..
And here:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
See also:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

And:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Wow, not one, but two disgruntled former employees, one of which more than likely lied to the 9/11 Commission. I'll tell you, I'm convinced. BTW, love your sig. That from ANSWER or MoveOn.org? The fact that part of your name is from a System of A Down song is not lost on me either. Love the band, hate their politics. Kinda like Rage Against the Machine. Unbelievable music, message sucks.

 

[clarky003]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

that's sick , i had no idea that the people make these kind of site's, let alone actually condoning a world ruled by An American Government.

they butter it up thinking that it's the best way for the world. The idea is power mongering, surely.

Hitler never died ;( , he migrated to America got his VISA and made that site.

 

[Hapless]

that's sick , i had no idea that the people make these kind of site's, let alone actually condoning a world ruled by An American Government.

Yeah, shame on them for promoting America when they should be bashing us and wringing their hands at the great evil we have wrought since the beginning of our existence. Leadership and ruling are two different things. This group thinks America should take more of a leadership role. I don't see anything in their opinions which suggests they want to, "rule the world."

And here we go with the Hitler crap again.

 

[clarky003]

it could very well turn out that way, an independant state making choice's for the world, and its different culture's, doesnt sound like they appreciate diversity to me, I know it's not really Hitler like (I was j/k there), but still, who do these rich bastard's think they are?, this is our world, not their's.

 

[CptStern]

Yeah, shame on them for promoting America when they should be bashing us and wringing their hands at the great evil we have wrought since the beginning of our existence. Leadership and ruling are two different things. This group thinks America should take more of a leadership role. I don't see anything in their opinions which suggests they want to, "rule the world."

did you read any of it?:

Statement of Principles:

"We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

members: Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz etc

 

[Hapless]

Who does any group think they are? I've been perusing the site, and all I've seen are articles related to current events. Most of the articles add a different spin to what is reported in the media. Once again, the all-consuming powermongering is hiding from me. This group is no different from any left-wing group. Except for the fact that they are right wing. I guess, if totalitarianism is what you see in this site, that the left-wing totalitarianism found in communism and socialism is preferable to right-wing totalitarianism. The political spectrum is not a line, with a right and left side, it is a circle, and both extremes lead back to totalitarianism.

 

[clarky003]

in your finest Texan accent

Where's my oil Maa, eer hick, dang that wat gonna make me a rich Son of B***h Texan, Yeeh Ha..!! n all my Budday's gonna be happay too, :naughty:

cummon Chainay, Back meh up oil budday , 'wink wink.

 

[Hapless]

did you read any of it?:

Statement of Principles:

"We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

members: Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz etc

Heaven knows we shouldn't attend to our interests. For God's sake, man, strengthening ties to democratic allies!? The heathens! These people must be stopped!!! How dare they.

 

[CptStern]

I fail to see your point

a group with power to affect regime change in other countries is not a group to be dismissed as just a voice for the right wing.

 

[CptStern]

Heaven knows we shouldn't attend to our interests. For God's sake, man, strengthening ties to democratic allies!? The heathens! These people must be stopped!!! How dare they.

you're not reading or you're ignoring the facts:

who gives them the right to affect change in other governments to protect their own interests? economic interests not self preservation

 

[Hapless]

I fail to see your point

a group with power to affect regime change in other countries is not a group to be dismissed as just a voice for the right wing.

I fail to see your point. If this was a left wing group to which John Kerry belonged, you'd have no problem with it. No, the fact that these people aren't on your side is what you find so unpalatable. Did you even bother reading any further than the mission statement?

 

[clarky003]

human world right's, American right's... arnt any of you guy's in America still a bit miffed about the patriot act.

they dont even have to ask as a police or government officer if they want to come into your home. Even though they are government official's, they can do it for any reason they see fit, surely that's atleast an invasion of privacey,

now they might be aiming, and gearing up to implement that around the world.

 

[CptStern]

some of you americans are such pompous asses ..what makes you think I support kerry? I'm anti-war not pro-kerry

Some of you need to stop spewing your "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric it's really annoying




anybody but bush 04

 

[Hapless]

human world right's, American right's... arnt any of you guy's in America still a bit miffed about the patriot act.

you dont even have to ask as a police or government officer, if they want to come into your home. Even though they are government official's, they can do it for any reason they see fit, surely that's atleast an invasion of privacey, now they might be gearing up to implement that around the world.

Hold on there, pal. I AM a police officer, and I'm here to tell you, I still need to get a search warrant based on probable cause to search someone's home/property. I don't know where you are getting this particular bit of foolishness, but try again. Is this truly what people around the world think? People who don't actually live in America, I mean.

 

[Hapless]

some of you americans are such pompous asses ..what makes you think I support kerry? I'm anti-war not pro-kerry

Some of you need to stop spewing your "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric it's really annoying




anybody but bush 04

The good old liberal standby: When confronted with the facts, resort to ad hominem attacks. True to form.

 

[clarky003]

Hold on there, pal. I AM a police officer, and I'm here to tell you, I still need to get a search warrant based on probable cause to search someone's home/property. I don't know where you are getting this particular bit of foolishness, but try again. Is this truly what people around the world think? People who don't actually live in America, I mean.

I heard an American getting interviewed on TV, and essentially what i made of it ,, was .. if anyone saw fit to go into someone's home without their consent, there would be no action taken against them if proven that they where there and didnt do any damage to the property, but still means you could just walk into any Jo's house and have a snoop around.

 

[CptStern]

The good old liberal standby: When confronted with the facts, resort to ad hominem attacks. True to form.

what are you babbling on about? what facts? I gave you facts up the whazoo and have you answered any of them? NO!

there is no justification that stands up to any level of scrutiny. At this point you're either a fool or ignorant if you believe the justifications that led to the occupation

 

[Hapless]

I heard an American getting interviewed on TV, and essentially what i made of it ,, was .. if anyone saw fit to go into someone's home without their consent, there would be no action taken against them if proven that they where there and didnt do any damage to the property, but still means you could just walk into any Jo's house and have a snoop around.

And everything you see on television is 100% true, just like everything you read on the internet. Seriously, this is kinda distressing to think that people in other countries believe that Americans have lost all basic rights, and they (the people in other countries) are next. No wonder there is such a negative opinion of Bush.

 

[Hapless]

what are you babbling on about? I gave you facts up the whazoo and have you answered any of them? NO!

there is no justification that stands up to any level of scrutiny. At this point you're either a fool or ignorant if you believe the justifications that led to the occupation

Facts? Where are those facts? Apparently my poorly educated, pompous American brain was unable to grasp them. Could you have pity on me and show me these "facts" again. Not statements from disgruntled, discredited former employees of the Bush Admin. portrayed as facts. Not a website which advocates a particular philosophy. FACTS!!!

Without scrolling back through all these pages, aren't you the guy who said Saddam complied with every UN resolution?

 

[CptStern]

Facts? Where are those facts? Apparently my poorly educated, pompous American brain was unable to grasp them. Could you have pity on me and show me these "facts" again. Not statements from disgruntled, discredited former employees of the Bush Admin. portrayed as facts. Not a website which advocates a particular philosophy. FACTS!!!

Without scrolling back through all these pages, aren't you the guy who said Saddam complied with every UN resolution?

facts: I'm not rehashing the hundreds of pages I've written on the subject, you're relatively new it's your duty to get caught up ...but here's a taste:

saddam was an ally, even during his greatest atrocities. The US supplied saddam with all the WMD used against the iranians and kurds

the US blocked an Iranian UN resolution calling for saddam to be tried for crimes against humanity

the US is guilty of war crimes in both wars, they've been tried AND convicted by the international war crimes tribunal

there are currently 93 cases of abuse, hundreds of suspected murders, and thousands of cases of civillans killed by US soldiers



Bush lied, rumsfeld lied, cheney lied, everyone lied etc:


Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002


Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002


If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003


Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003


So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003


We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003


There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003


I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003


Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

 

[Hapless]

facts: I'm not rehashing the hundreds of pages I've written on the subject, you're relatively new it's your duty to get caught up ...but here's a taste:

saddam was an ally, even during his greatest atrocities. The US supplied saddam with all the WMD used against the iranians and kurds

the US blocked an Iranian UN resolution calling for saddam to be tried for crimes against humanity

the US is guilty of war crimes in both wars, they've been tried AND convicted by the international war crimes tribunal

there are currently 93 cases of abuse, hundreds of suspected murders, and thousands of cases of civillans killed by US soldiers

We supplied all the WMD's? It's funny that all the weapons I saw when I was over there in the first Gulf War were Russian and Jordanian.

Saddam was an ally at that time out of necessity, because of the greater danger perceived from Iran. Again, looking out for our own interests is a crime, apparently.

I looked up your "war crimes tribunal" allegation. Interesting that this tribunal found all U.S. leaders from 1945-2001 guilty of war crimes. Interesting as well that they pronounced themselves in solidarity with the "Week of Resistance" at the RNC. Get back to me when an ACTUAL war crimes tribunal finds anyone guilty of anything. The ACTUAL war crimes tribunal trying Slobodan Milosevic has taken years, and he still hasn't been convicted. I think I'll declare myself a tribunal and find YOU guilty of war crimes. I think that would hold about as much weight.

Back to the alliance with Saddam, there is ample evidence that France and other countries violated U.N. resolutions regarding the oil for food program. France, apparently, profited greatly from this arrangement. How noble that they choose to take the "high road" and refuse to participate in ANY action against their benefac....I mean, Iraq.

All those quotes do is show that EVERYONE, including Clinton's admin, believed there were WMD. In fact, your argument that we supplied him with WMD contradicts your contention that there were none, and therefore this was not a justification for war. I'm still waiting for some facts.

BTW, n00b, May 2004 comes after Sept. 2003, at least in the United States.

 

[ferd]

Yeah, shame on them for promoting America when they should be bashing us and wringing their hands at the great evil we have wrought since the beginning of our existence. Leadership and ruling are two different things. This group thinks America should take more of a leadership role. I don't see anything in their opinions which suggests they want to, "rule the world."

And here we go with the Hitler crap again.

Maybe it's you who has wrong norms.

 

[CptStern]

We supplied all the WMD's? It's funny that all the weapons I saw when I was over there in the first Gulf War were Russian and Jordanian.

really? I didnt realise these were jordanian/russian companies:

A - nuclear K - chemical B - biological R - rockets (missiles)

1) Honeywell (R,K)
2) Spektra Physics (K)
3) Semetex (R)
4) TI Coating (A,K)
5) UNISYS (A,K)
6) Sperry Corp. (R,K)
7) Tektronix (R,A)
8) Rockwell )(K)
9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
12) Dupont (A)
13) Eastman Kodak (R)
14) American Type Culture Collection (B)
15) Alcolac International (C)
16) Consarc (A)
17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
18) Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19) Electronic Assiciates (R)
20) International Computer Systems
21) Bechtel (K)
22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)
23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

Saddam was an ally at that time out of necessity, because of the greater danger perceived from Iran. Again, looking out for our own interests is a crime, apparently.

so I guess it's ok to supply WMD when they're an ally, knowing full well they're using it on civilians ...hypocritical if you ask me:

I say we go after the source

I looked up your "war crimes tribunal" allegation. Interesting that this tribunal found all U.S. leaders from 1945-2001 guilty of war crimes. Interesting as well that they pronounced themselves in solidarity with the "Week of Resistance" at the RNC. Get back to me when an ACTUAL war crimes tribunal finds anyone guilty of anything. The ACTUAL war crimes tribunal trying Slobodan Milosevic has taken years, and he still hasn't been convicted. I think I'll declare myself a tribunal and find YOU guilty of war crimes. I think that would hold about as much weight.

nice attempt at sidestepping ...here read this

are you denying that these charges are valid? Prove that they've been falsified

Back to the alliance with Saddam, there is ample evidence that France and other countries violated U.N. resolutions regarding the oil for food program. France, apparently, profited greatly from this arrangement. How noble that they choose to take the "high road" and refuse to participate in ANY action against their benefac....I mean, Iraq.

who cares? it's an insignificant point that has nothing to do with what we're discussing

All those quotes do is show that EVERYONE, including Clinton's admin, believed there were WMD.

again, who cares? for the last time I'm not supporting the democrats ..they're all guilty of pushing propaganda

In fact, your argument that we supplied him with WMD contradicts your contention that there were none, and therefore this was not a justification for war. I'm still waiting for some facts.

nope, no contratiction here, he obviously had them because he used them ...doesnt mean he didnt get rid of them. Is that all you have to say? it's quite clear that the Bush admin used fear to persuade the american people that going into iraq was the right thing to do ...but I guess it doesnt bother you that your president lied

BTW, n00b, May 2004 comes after Sept. 2003, at least in the United States.

and? it's not like you've ever participated in these topics

 

[clarky003]

The New World Order and Big Oil
We believe that the real goal of the United States war against Iraq is to return to the "good old days" when the U.S. and some European countries totally plundered the resources of the Middle East. Five of the twelve largest corporations in the United States are oil monopolies. Before the rise of Arab nationalism and the anti-feudal revolutions that swept out colonialist regimes in Iraq and other Middle Eastem countries in the 1950s and 1960s, U.S., British, and Dutch oil companies owned Arab and Iranian oil fields outright. Between 1948 and 1960 U.S. oil companies received $13 billion in profit from their Persian Gulf holdings. That was half the return on all overseas investment by all U.S. companies in those years.
In recent decades U.S. companies no longer directly own the oil fields of the Middle East, but they still get rich from them. That is because the royal families of the oil-rich Arabian peninsula, who were put on their thrones by the British empire and are kept there by the U.S. military and the CIA, have loyally turned their kingdoms into cash cows for Wall Street banks and corporations.

This is one way it works. Money spent on Saudi Arabian oil, for example, once went into the accounts of Rockefeller-controlled oil corporations at the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank. Now it is deposited in the Saudi king's huge account at Chase Manhattan which reinvests it at a hefty profit to the Rockefellers. Chase Manhattan also manages the Saudi Industrial Development Fund and the Saudi Investment Bank. Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, which is linked to Mobil and Texaco, has a representative on the Board of the Saudi Monetary Authority and controls another big chunk of the kingdom's income. Citicorp handles much of the Emir of Kuwait's $120 billion investment portfolio.[l5] The total amount that the Gulf's feudal lords have put at the disposal of the western bankers is conservatively estimated at $1 trillion. It is probably much more.

While the big oil companies have a going partnership with the feudal rulers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, etc., they are relatively locked out of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, and Algeria. The goal of the U.S. war is to roll back the Arab revolution and all the other revolutionary movements that have swept the region since World War II.

The New World Order that Bush has in mind is, in fact, not so new. It is an attempt to turn the clock back to the pre-World War II era of unchallenged colonial domination and plunder of the land, labor, and resources of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East by a handful of industrialized capitalist countries. Unlike the old world order of outright colonialism, the new world order will be imposed by Stealth aircraft, guided missiles, smart bombs, and tactical nuclear weapons - not l9th-century gunboats. This is based on grand geopolitical strategy that flows like water from Pentagon-sponsored think tanks in Washington. It leaves out the most important factor in the equation of the Middle East - the broad mass of the people whose hatred for foreign domination and capacity to struggle remains as powerful as ever.

The U.S. and its imperialist allies have won a temporary victory in the Middle East. But their policy of military domination to stop the natural progression of history - for people to liberate themselves from the yoke of colonialism - cannot succeed.

this probably isnt very far off the truth, not very nice of them either, but who said they were nice right?.

from a neutral point, it seem's that the Bush administration think their above the Law.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-crime.htm

 

[mashed]

Only the dead have seen the end of war. -- Plato

bingo!

 

[seinfeldrules]

I disagree. Can you show evidence to support this view?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5907561/

President Bush also wished Clinton "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery" at a campaign stop in West Allis, Wis.. Some in the audience booed his remarks.

Here is a video link of the speech. Tell me if you hear any booing.

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/09/bloggers-bust-ap-no-booing-at-bush.html


.......Different Topic

is that why he was an ally for 20 years? rumsfeld shaking hands with the devil days after the news broke that saddam gassed iranian troops.

Do some research on US - Iranian relations at the time.

protecting? :

"A report prepared by the top CIA official handling the matter says Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the massacre, and indicates that it was the work of Iranians. Further, the Scott inquiry on the role of the British government has gathered evidence that following the massacre the United States in fact armed Saddam Hussein to counter the Iranians chemicals for chemicals"

protecting by letting them die? and then arming saddam?

How about you post a link from CNN or something on this topic. A sight titled commondreams doesnt sound exactly 'fair and balanced' :naughty:

Here is one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42405-2003Mar4?language=printer

Kurds applaud any military campaign to unseat Hussein, whose forces gassed, shot and bulldozed about 100,000 Kurds 15 years ago, according to estimates by human rights groups. "He's the murderer of Kurds," said Azad Mohammed, trimming a sheet of tin in his shop

.......

saddam complied to every resolution leading up to the invasion

How about the inspectors he kicked out?

 

[Cooper]

Nice job guys, instead of honoring fallen soldiers you turn it into a political thread. Good going.


Hapless thanks for your service. I hope you veterans are treated better this time around then in Vietnam. You guys deserve nothing less but America's full praise.

If you guys want some opinions of this war besides what you get in the news here you go. Blogs from a Marine and Iraqis who are actually in Iraq.

http://www.thegreenside.com/story.asp?ContentID=9990
http://www.roadofanation.com/blog/
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

 

[seinfeldrules]

With an opening statement like this:

The U.S. toll for Bush's war hit 1000 today.

Did you honestly expect them to respect the troops?

It is America's War and we stand united. God bless all the soldiers over there now. You are the true heroes.

PS thanks for those links Cooper, they were really eye opening.

 

[Neutrino]

With an opening statement like this:

Did you honestly expect them to respect the troops?

Seriously, I could find that pretty damn offensive and insulting. Just because someone disagrees with the war and/or bush has nothing to do with whether or not they support the troops.

Personally, I do not think we should ever have gone there and I disagree with the decisions that brought us to this point. However, I still have a great amount of respect for the troops and what they are going through. I would never disrespect our military personnel based on my political views. They have my full support.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Seriously, I could find that pretty damn offensive and insulting. Just because someone disagrees with the war and/or bush has nothing to do with whether or not they support the troops.

I never said that someone cant disagree, yet still support the troops. I do find it offensive that someone makes a topic in 'respect' for the troops and instantly turns it into a political debate. Ask any of the soldiers, this isnt "Bush's War" it is America's War. We are in it together. Dont disrespect them by using the death toll as a political statistic against Bush, as the topic was intended to do.

 

[RabidMeatloaf]

God bless the soldiers.

 

[Neutrino]

Dont disrespect them by using the death toll as a political statistic against Bush, as the topic was intended to do.

Sorry, but I don't consider that disrespecting the troops. I don't think we should have gone to war and I think the adminstration was wrong to do so. As a direct result of that war American troops and Iraqi civilians died. I think that they should all still be alive right now.

I'm not disrespecting them or saying they died for nothing. Regardless of political decisions they died fighting for American and democracy and for that they have my deepest gratitude and respect. But that doesn't invalidate the point that I do not think they should have had to give their lives in the first place.

I know you disagree with me over whether we should be there or not, but I'm sorry I consider the lost lives of our soldiers to be very important and therefore I consider it to be an important issue in politics, since it is politicians who send them to war in the first place.

 

[Hapless]

really? I didnt realise these were jordanian/russian companies:

A - nuclear K - chemical B - biological R - rockets (missiles)

1) Honeywell (R,K)
2) Spektra Physics (K)
3) Semetex (R)
4) TI Coating (A,K)
5) UNISYS (A,K)
6) Sperry Corp. (R,K)
7) Tektronix (R,A)
8) Rockwell )(K)
9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
12) Dupont (A)
13) Eastman Kodak (R)
14) American Type Culture Collection (B)
15) Alcolac International (C)
16) Consarc (A)
17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
18) Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19) Electronic Assiciates (R)
20) International Computer Systems
21) Bechtel (K)
22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)
23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

I'm sorry, are any of those companies owned by the U.S. Government? Do any of these companies also deal with Jordan and Russia?

so I guess it's ok to supply WMD when they're an ally, knowing full well they're using it on civilians ...hypocritical if you ask me:

I say we go after the source

Again, we haven't established that the US Government has supplied any weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, when was the last time the US used WMD against another country, much less it's own people. Yes, we dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, but that was necessary to end the war, which would have dragged on for years and years. I'm quite sure the act was not relished by anyone involved. In Saddam's case, and others in the Mid-East, the chance to use something like this WOULD be relished.

nice attempt at sidestepping ...here read this

are you denying that these charges are valid? Prove that they've been falsified

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/

http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm

http://www.iacenter.org/yugwartr.htm

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_10631.shtml

http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html

http://www.mindpollen.com/tribunal/


These links speak for themselves regarding your "war crimes" pap.

who cares? it's an insignificant point that has nothing to do with what we're discussing

Oh, I think it's very relevant.

nope, no contratiction here, he obviously had them because he used them ...doesnt mean he didnt get rid of them. Is that all you have to say? it's quite clear that the Bush admin used fear to persuade the american people that going into iraq was the right thing to do ...but I guess it doesnt bother you that your president lied

Well, let's see, if he'd have complied with the UN mandates, as you said he did, we'd have known for sure he didn't have them. The simple fact is, he did not comply. He dug his own grave. Also, before I forget, you or someone else in this thread claim that we killed 500,000 Iraqi children during the first Gulf War. This time you (or whoever) can't even get your misinformation correct. The claim has been made that the UN sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children. Not the war. Again, the evidence of this is highly suspect.

and? it's not like you've ever participated in these topics

There comes a time when one must stop lurking and poke holes in the misinformation and disinformation being spread here. This is one of those times. I have been to this site almost every day since before I registered, because of my hunger for any info regarding HL2. The fact that I don't spam every topic is of no consequence.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Sorry, but I don't consider that disrespecting the troops. I don't think we should have gone to war and I think the adminstration was wrong to do so. As a direct result of that war American troops and Iraqi civilians died. I think that they should all still be alive right now.

I'm not disrespecting them or saying they died for nothing. Regardless of political decisions they died fighting for American and democracy and for that they have my deepest gratitude and respect. But that doesn't invalidate the point that I do not think they should have had to give their lives in the first place.

I know you disagree with me over whether we should be there or not, but I'm sorry I consider the lost lives of our soldiers to be very important and therefore I consider it to be an important issue in politics, since it is politicians who send them to war in the first place.

Politics doesnt have a place in honoring the fallen. You wont see a huge statue of Bush at ground zero saying "Vote Bush 2004, Honor the Dead". Make one topic regarding the soldiers, and another dealing with the other topics of debate over the war.

 

[chimpmunk]

So are we done? Not until Iraq is stable and free... Objectives change in war.. Hell in everything.

HAHAHAAHAHAAA

there are thousands of dictators everywhere in the world, why don't God-blessed-united-states-freedom-keepers-of-the-world-of-america also go to war with those dictators?

Spoiler

NO OIL!

 

[seinfeldrules]

there are thousands of dictators everywhere in the world, why don't God-blessed-united-states-freedom-keepers-of-the-world-of-america also go to war with those dictators?

How about the UN goes after those dictators? Oh wait, they're unwilling to do anything without the "God-blessed-united-states-freedom-keepers-of-the-world-of-america".

 

[chimpmunk]

How about the UN goes after those dictators? Oh wait, they're unwilling to do anything without the "God-blessed-united-states-freedom-keepers-of-the-world-of-america".

UN is useless, it's got no military use, but is a decent humanitary organisation.

So you really think Bush said befor going to war : "well this is gonna cost us billions of dollars and be really bad for our economy and worldwide reputation (wich isn't that good either) but it's gonna bring freedom to iraki people, so let's do it anyways. God bless me! "

Of course not, he wanted the oil!

 

[gh0st]

HAHAHAAHAHAAA

there are thousands of dictators everywhere in the world, why don't God-blessed-united-states-freedom-keepers-of-the-world-of-america also go to war with those dictators?

Spoiler

NO OIL!

thousands of dictators? how many countries are there again... oh right. unfortunate that the god-blessed-education-system-of-holier-than-thou-canada couldent help you out with that. by the way, this thread is disgusting, personally. surely the creater knew what he woul dunleash by referring to it as "bush's war", when its americas war.

UN is useless, it's got no military use, but is a decent humanitary organisation.

So you really think Bush said "well this is gonna cost us billions of dollars and be really bad for our economy and worldwide reputation (wich isn't that good either) but it's gonna bring freedom to iraki people, so let's do it anyways. God bless me! "

Of course not, he wanted the oil!

decent humanitary organization? who do you think provides the billions of dollars for foreign aid (somalia, etc). who do you think provides the military support? god.. bringing oil into it.

 

[chimpmunk]

thousands of dictators? how many countries are there again... oh right. unfortunate that the god-blessed-education-system-of-holier-than-thou-canada couldent help you out with that. by the way, this thread is disgusting, personally. surely the creater knew what he woul dunleash by referring to it as "bush's war", when its americas war.

the thousand was a metaphor...

and i'm NOT canadian.