• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Three more young Americans die for Bush Reelection Campaign

shemp

a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
69,494
Location
The U.S., a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
3 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iraq Attacks

Three American soldiers were killed and 13 injured in a mortar attack and a bombing in the volatile region of central Iraq, the U.S. military reported Sunday. The deaths followed an assassination attempt against a member of Iraq's Governing Council.

Two soldiers from the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade were killed when mortars hit a U.S. base near the Abu Ghraib prison on the western outskirts of Baghdad about 10 p.m. Saturday. Thirteen other soldiers were injured in the attack. No prisoners were injured.

Shortly before the Abu Ghraib shelling, a soldier from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment was killed when his Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb near Ramadi, about 60 miles west of the capital, the military said.

The deaths brought to 165 the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq since May 1 when President Bush declared major fighting was over. During the heavy fighting before then 138 soldiers died. The latest deaths brought to 302 the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.

Three more young Americans dead. I wonder if they ever got a chance to vote. I wonder if they voted for Dubya.

I wonder how many more will die before the Bush Reelection Campaign gets the bad news from the American people next November, namely that the Bush Reelection War has failed to produce its designed goal and that the people have thrown him out on his fat sorry a$$.
 
The current situation in Iraq is very sad, but was also entirely predictable. Sure, the Iraqi people detested Saddam Hussein, but did that mean they wanted to be invaded and occupied by the USA? I think not.

The longer troops stay there, the more hated they will become, and the more the rebels will grow in numbers, training and confidence.

Of course Bush can't pull out now, as there is no guarantee he will be left with a government in Iraq which is amenable to US economic interests.

The only way he can relieve the situation is to hope US allies will relieve the pressure by supplying some of the cannon fodder.
 
I somehow doubt the three brave young men who died yesterday wanted their death trivialized by shemp's use as a political tool against the president. I think the policies in Iraq are right or wrong without taking each death of a brave fighting man and trumpeting it as a case against the policy. Your use of their individual deaths is contemptible.
 
Shinytop said:
I somehow doubt the three brave young men who died yesterday wanted their death trivialized by shemp's use as a political tool against the president. I think the policies in Iraq are right or wrong without taking each death of a brave fighting man and trumpeting it as a case against the policy. Your use of their individual deaths is contemptible.
I see. Do have any contempt to spare for Bush's lying to make a case for this war? The politics runs both ways.
 
Shinytop said:
I somehow doubt the three brave young men who died yesterday wanted their death trivialized by shemp's use as a political tool against the president. I think the policies in Iraq are right or wrong without taking each death of a brave fighting man and trumpeting it as a case against the policy. Your use of their individual deaths is contemptible.

That way, you could also argue not to put a murderer for trial because doning so would use the death of the victim to harm the murderer.


No, I don´t call Mr. Bush a murderer - though he caused all these deaths by...is there a specific word for it...knowing what he did would kill people and not give a damn about it, so he just let them die.
 
originalgagster said:


The only way he can relieve the situation is to hope US allies will relieve the pressure by supplying some of the cannon fodder.

And I doubt that will happen, since Bush called the UN "irrelevant". Heck, who could blame them? Bush decided that he didn't need anyone's help, so he rudely shrugged off their criticisms and went to war anyways. And now he wants their help? I wouldn't give any help if he asked me.
 
I think Bush should be removed from office for his contemptuous treatment of Americans in his lying about the reasons for going to war. That in no way justifies chortling about dead American fighting men in political rants.

The following is extracted from a post I made in another forum entitled "The Other Cost of Iraqi Freedom". It pretty much sums up my views then. My current views remain much the same with the addition of complete disappointment with the way Bush and company have handled the peace.

War brings on many tragedies. The obvious tragedies of lives lost and families destroyed come to mind. But I am afraid there will be a hidden tragedy come out of the war just ended. No, I am not talking about the long term health effects of soldiers and non combatants from the waste of the battlefield. I am talking about the trivializing of the lives of our soldiers.

Oh, yes, we honor them with parades, with guest appearances on the news and with all too many military funerals. But we all talk about and most agree that war should only be undertaken in the most grave of circumstances; when a threat exists to our country, our interests, the lives of our citizens. And we can also pursue war for noble purposes; we can make war to free the oppressed, to free slaves, to liberate a country; noble reasons and often worth the human cost.

But what just transpired was a travesty. We did a good deed and I am glad we did it. But how did it come about? We found Weapons of Mass Destruction. We found tons and tons. We found enough with solid enough evidence to take the most drastic action one nation can take against another, we had enough evidence to go to war. Our leader told the people of this country, trust us, we have solid evidence. And many trusted him, after all, how could a god fearing president, one who wields his religion like a shield of honor, lie to the people looking to him for leadership and guidance. We have evidence, trust me. And he parades his Secretary of State before the world, a man who has served his country in war with honor, and he also has him swear to the leaders of the world, swear before the United Nations, we have the evidence, trust us. He takes his country’s most erstwhile ally and convinces him to join us in this quest, this crusade to rid the world of a madman with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Can you hear the deep ringing gongs echo as those words are uttered, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? You know evil lurks in the world, we have been told.

Now we are over a month past the end of the war to rid the world of Saddam and his {gong} Weapons of Mass Destruction {gong}. And what have we found? Where are the tons of weapons? Where is the evidence? Certainly we did not go to war over WMD’s and not monitor these tons we knew were there? Our cameras that can read newspapers from space did not lose them, did they? One hundred thousand men on the ground in Iraq could not also miss them?

So we have freed an oppressed people. And we have fought a very successful war, a war that showed the world that they better not screw with America. And for the freedom of the Iraqi people, and for the lesson that cheap, third rate dictators should not spit on Superman’s cape. And for those reasons I am glad we invaded Iraq and for many reasons I am bursting with pride in our armed forces.

So where is the travesty, the tragedy beyond the obvious deaths and shattered lives? What our president has done is squandered the good will of his office and our country. The next time he says we must do so and so to fix such and such I will be one citizen a whole lot more skeptical. And when he says. “trust me”, I will grab my wallet and hold onto it with both hands. And when we have a truly just cause and we send the Secretary of State around to convince Spain, Italy, and England of the justness of our cause, of the very necessity of it happening, will they be a quick to join us? Or will they wink and say the phrase the honorable leader could not remember, “Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on thee.”

And then we consider the other coin of war, the trust of the armed forces. Oh, they signed up to defend our country and to be used as instruments of our foreign policy. They will respond. But when you announce one reason for a war and then scramble for other reasons even the most honorable must wonder what they are being used for. When you spiel reasons for war like a huckster selling the latest miracle cure you sully the service of these honorable men, you tarnish the luster their service should bear. And when you break trust with the very men who protect that freedom you start down a very steep road. War and expenditure of the lives of our armed forces should always be ventured into with honor, not with lies reminiscent of the man selling me ocean front property in Arizona.
 
Originally posted by clk
And I doubt that will happen, since Bush called the UN "irrelevant". Heck, who could blame them? Bush decided that he didn't need anyone's help, so he rudely shrugged off their criticisms and went to war anyways. And now he wants their help? I wouldn't give any help if he asked me.

Evidently petty squabbles are more important to you than actually helping people out. The US isn't ultimately who needs the help, it's the Iraqi people who need it. But hey, why not spite them just to get even with Bush?

As far as security, the UN really is irrelevant. They can't provide security to anyone. One of the biggest civilian masacres in the Balkan conflict happened in a UN-protected safe area, and the UN troops did virtually nothing to stop it. They should play no role in security unless we want a repeat of that kind of disaster. But they can, and should, play a role in reconstruction effort. But perhaps the rest of the UN is just as petty and vindictive as you are. And it's Iraq that will really suffer for that, not the US. Of course, the UN never really cared about the Iraqi people, so no surprise if that happens.
 
Sorry, to have to bash you twice in a row, Ziggurat, but this needs and answer.

As for how much the U.S. cared about the Iraqi people, refer to my latest post in the "Canary in a Mine" thread.

As for the irrelevance of the U.N.:
I do not know the specifics of the incident you refer to, - the Srebrenica massacre, isn´t it - so I will not comment that. Do not consider that as depreciatory or playing this down, just as me not discussing something I have no info about.
Generally, however, much of the ineffectiveness of the U.N. comes from the ability of the permanent of the Security Council to veto decisions. Historically, the most prolific vetoer has been the U.S., whenever anything was against their interest. You might say that the U.S. Administration knows best about the U.N. being ineffective because they made them so.
 
Chaos said:

As for the irrelevance of the U.N.:
I do not know the specifics of the incident you refer to, - the Srebrenica massacre, isn´t it - so I will not comment that.

It's a sad tale indeed. The basic lesson is that the UN cannot handle direct command of peacekeeping forces.


Historically, the most prolific vetoer has been the U.S., whenever anything was against their interest.

I'm afraid you're factually incorrect. The USSR was the number one vetoer, and not by a narrow margin either. Almost half of the US vetos have been regarding Israel - I'm sure you'll interpret the meaning of that differently than I will. The second part of that sentence is also rather meaningless, since vetoing resolutions against their interest is what all the permanent members did.
 
Almost half of the US vetos have been regarding Israel - I'm sure you'll interpret the meaning of that differently than I will.

I interpret that in the way that they wanted to protect their only ally in the middle east against having to do what the majority of the Council members (and probably, U.N. members) wanted them to do, regardless of it being justified or not (which is not meant as saying it was always justified).

And how about your interpretation?
 
Chaos said:

I interpret that in the way that they wanted to protect their only ally in the middle east against having to do what the majority of the Council members (and probably, U.N. members) wanted them to do, regardless of it being justified or not (which is not meant as saying it was always justified).

And how about your interpretation?

I interpret it as also being a result of a widespread anti-Israel sentiment throughout Europe and the middle east. I interpret it as the arab world scapegoating their problems, and Europe willingly tagging along because they don't much care for Israel or the background problems that lead to the scapegoating. I interpret it as the US also sticking up for its best ally in the region and the only democracy in the middle east. And I interpret the overall veto numbers as a sign that in most world affairs the US really isn't the lone cowboy it's often made out to be.
 
Shinytop said:
I think Bush should be removed from office for his contemptuous treatment of Americans in his lying about the reasons for going to war. That in no way justifies chortling about dead American fighting men in political rants.

CHORTLING??? CHORTLING??? WHO THE HELL IS CHORTLING???

302 brave young Americans have died in Iraq so far, not to protect America, not to protect the world from a tyrant who didn't actually have the WMDs Bush claimed he did, not for freedom, but instead TO SATISFY THE REELECTION DESIRES OF A MADMAN!

Bush knew that Saddam had no WMDs, that Saddam had no provable ties to bin Laden, that the story about buying uranium from Niger was a hoax, that Saddam was no threat to the American people. So why did he start this war? For two reasons: he wanted to avenge his daddy's embarassment, and HE BELIEVED THAT THIS WAR WOULD BOOST HIS CHANCES OF REELECTION.

He knowingly sent Americans to their deaths in Iraq for political reasons. He is the one who has politicized their deaths.

It is one thing to go after a man (bin Laden) and an organization (al-Qaeda) that attacked America. I am all for full punishment for them. But it is another thing entirely to lie to your own nation about the reasons for sending their sons and daughters off to die, and to expect that when confronted with the truth, that the people should just bend over and ask you to ram it to them again! And worst of all, HE LIED TO THOSE BRAVE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN ABOUT WHY HE WAS ORDERING THEM TO RISK, AND ULTIMATELY GIVE, THEIR LIVES.

Bush deserves to be impeached for his lies. He deserves to be convicted for his lies. And he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison for his lies.
 
shemp said:

Bush knew that Saddam had no WMDs, that Saddam had no provable ties to bin Laden, that the story about buying uranium from Niger was a hoax, that Saddam was no threat to the American people.

Shemp, you're an ignorant troll. You can't even get your criticism of Bush straight. His state of the union address was not specific to Niger, the fact that this one document was a hoax doesn't actually say anything about the broader claim that was ACTUALLY made. But you don't care. It doesn't matter to you that there are more serious problems with the alluminum tubes they claimed were for centrifuges, you just go with what the ignorant press thinks is the scandal of the day, as long as it's anti-Bush.
 
Bush didn't need a war in Iraq to get reelected. I think it is bordering on the paranormal to claim to know those were his true motives for starting the war.
 
Is there *any* evidence that Bush lied about going to war against Saddam? Lied, as opposed to believing intelligence that turned out to be faulty...
Is there a tape of him admitting that there were no WMDs, a memo from his desk describing how Saddam had no ties to terrorists but to make it look that way?
Or are you merely beating him up for acting on incorrect intelligence for your own political purposes?
I think the answer is pretty evident.
 
Either Bush lied or led an totally incompetent effort. Facts are that the WMD's were chosen after pollsters found that the American public would back that reason. There may have been some wishful thinking but it had to be lies when they described the tons of weapons and even that the Iraqi Army had supplies moved to the front for 45 minute release. No, I cannot believe we lost track of such important items or that tons just disappeared. Bush lied.
 
Shinytop said:
Either Bush lied or led an totally incompetent effort. Facts are that the WMD's were chosen after pollsters found that the American public would back that reason. There may have been some wishful thinking but it had to be lies when they described the tons of weapons and even that the Iraqi Army had supplies moved to the front for 45 minute release. No, I cannot believe we lost track of such important items or that tons just disappeared. Bush lied.

How is it that Bush is the liar when it was Powell who presented the claim of tons of weapons an estimate and when it was the UK that made the claim about the 45 minute launch?
 
ssibal said:


How is it that Bush is the liar when it was Powell who presented the claim of tons of weapons an estimate and when it was the UK that made the claim about the 45 minute launch?

This link says Bush described the threat as imminent on October 7, 2002.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/10/08102002135121.asp


This site analyzes the Bush Administration's assertion that Iraq is an imminent threat:
http://www.inlibertyandfreedom.com/PDF/WarTruth-3.pdf

This analysis of the State of the Union address says that Bush claimed Iraq was an imminent threat:
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html

Besides the above you must remember that a leader is responsible for his administration. If Bush did not support Powell's remarks he could have dismissed Powell and announced he did not back it. You are trying to excuse the man based on nit picking, not reality.
 

Back
Top Bottom