Family 'Thanks' Bush for Death of Son

[Angel]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Now the question for ALL you anti-Bush left wingers is this - do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq or not? Yes, or no?

Please explain what would constitute a win? More Iraqi's dead than American's? US receiving the oil profits? We need more info, please!!!

[jhale667]

Originally posted by Sarge
Firtst off I am a Republican who doesn't like BUSH.
What we are facing now is even worse and is still happening in a daily basis.

I am at lunch.. let me return back to my job here at FORT HOOD Darnall Army Community Hospital
.. where over 100 soldiers have died since the war has started and take care of my patients.. who are riddled with shrapnel and missing limbs.
This war is a bunch of horseshit and most people are not educated on what the fuck is going on unless it effects them.

You guys gonna call THIS a comment from a 'leftist sympathizer'? Get real.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
You want the war to end now? Then the 1,000 dead in Iraq died for nothing - and that is the ONLY way they wouild have died for nothing.

Of course not. We are knee deep in shit over there and we will be there for years to come.
A lot more than 1,000 lives will be lost.

The premise for us invading IRAQ .. was a lie.

It's not about winning or losing..
BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANYTHING TO WIN.
It's a lose-lose situation that BUSH.. and only BUSH got us into.

How could anyone feel comfortable about their loved ones winding up dead in IRAQ?
This war is bullshit.

[Angel]

Originally posted by FORD
2) War of 1812 - When the Brits tried to "undo" #1

What do you mean "tried"? Seems to me you guys lost that one... actually the REAL losers from 1812 were the Native Americans.

[Angel]

Originally posted by Sarge
Of course not. We are knee deep in shit over there and we will be there for years to come.
A lot more than 1,000 lives will be lost.

The premise for us invading IRAQ .. was a lie.

It's not about winning or losing..
BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANYTHING TO WIN.
It's a lose-lose situation that BUSH.. and only BUSH got us into.

How could anyone feel comfortable about their loved ones winding up dead in IRAQ?
This war is bullshit.

Sarge, my respect for you has just grown immensely! Keep on trying to get the truth out there, someone needs to educate your fellow citizens! :D

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Sarge

This war is bullshit.

Truer words have never been spoken...

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by FORD
Let me put it this way.... There's only 3 wars in the history of this country that the United States had any business getting involved in.

1) The Revolutionary War - obviously.

2) War of 1812 - When the Brits tried to "undo" #1

3) World War II - after Pearl Harbor, there wasn't a choice in the matter. And keep in mind that without the devastation of WWI (which the US had no reason to be in) and the financing of the BCE, there would have been no Adolf Hitler, and therefore, no WWII.

If 9-11 had been a country attacking America, then a clear cut case for a 4th justified war against that country would exist, As it is, even assuming the "official story" is correct, it is impossible to fight a "war" against an undefinable enemy.

Any other war the US has involved itself in has been for reasons other than defending this country, and that includes the so-called "Civil War", in which even more Americans that died in Vietnam paid the price for a bunch of arrogant lazy sister-fuckers who thought they had the "right" to own fellow human beings.

Where do I start.

Most of the population of the Colonies were loyal to the King, according to your criteria they should not have revolted, right? Those Revolutionaries along with their henchmen propogandists like Adams and their madmen militarists like that traitor Washington trying to form their own country, start a war against the will of the Colonists, how dare they? The Brits could have crushed American forces in both wars had they not been so invlolved with their war against France.

The U. S. had no reason to be in WWI? Huh? Fine for the Brits and French to lose that one?

"the so-called "Civil War", in which even more Americans that died in Vietnam " - more Americans died in the Civil War than all the other wars combined. You don't think the Civil War needed to be prosecuted by the North? You, who think that the Chechans are within their right to secede and form their own country and seperate from Russia, don't think that the South had a right to secede?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Angel
Please explain what would constitute a win? More Iraqi's dead than American's? US receiving the oil profits? We need more info, please!!!

Exactly... Junior said the "mission was accomplished" when they pulled down a fucking statue. They didn't even have Saddam Hussein in custody yet, or even any of his minions at that point. Just a rigged event of a statue pulled down by a tank, with Chalabi's Cheerleaders posing as "the grateful people of Iraq".

And about 900 US servicemen and women have died since then. A puppet government is in place, yet very little has really changed. No end in sight?

And with 14 military bases planned for Iraq, it's obvious that the BCE does not have any intention of pulling troops out, but rather using Iraq as a central staging area for future PNAC invasions.

[jhale667]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

Now the question for ALL you anti-Bush left wingers is this - do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq or not? Yes, or no?

I like how you have to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a 'Anti-Bush left-wingers', just like W. tries to say that anyone who criticizes him is 'unpatriotic', and then cheney plays on the fear vote and says basically "If you don't re-elect US, we'll get hit by the terrorists again". It's fucking pathetic. Nobody (at least anyone I talk to Repub or Dem) thinks we should just cut and run out of there. The FACT of the matter is W. MISREPRESENTED the reasons for going over there (everyone agrees Saddam is an ass, but as far as being a credible threat, no), but face it...that was all about OIL and Halliburton (oh no, he brought up the 'H' word!) and he LIED. Why can't you admit that? Why are we facing such tough opposition there NOW, when the Iraqis were surrendering to CAMERA CREWS in the Gulf War? Because we were RIGHT to go there then, they SUPPORTED us( my best friend is in the USAF, has been there BOTH times...the Iraqis were HAPPY TO SEE US THE 1st TIME)...and we didn't finish the job. We were supposed to 'liberate' them then...and we didn't. Bush Sr. left that fuck in power, and Junior (on a personal vendetta for daddy, coupled with his oil interests) wanted to go in there BEFORE 9/11!!! Anybody remember that?!?! Go ahead, call me a 'leftist' just because I can see W.'s full of shit.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Sarge
Of course not. We are knee deep in shit over there and we will be there for years to come.
A lot more than 1,000 lives will be lost.

The premise for us invading IRAQ .. was a lie.

It's not about winning or losing..
BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANYTHING TO WIN.
It's a lose-lose situation that BUSH.. and only BUSH got us into.

How could anyone feel comfortable about their loved ones winding up dead in IRAQ?
This war is bullshit.

Wrong, the premise was not a lie. The left in this country has been HOWLING since 9/12/2001 that Bush "didn't connect the dots", they were "asleep at the wheel" they "ignored the obvious" etc etc etc ad nauseum about the attacks fo September 11.

All of U.S. intelligence, the intelligence services of France, Britain, Egypt, Jordan and many other countries said Iraq has and was developing WMDs. Russia knew that Iraq was planning attacks against the U.S. and informed us. Mubarkek told Tommy Franks that U.S. troops would probably be atacked with chemicals weapons if we invaded. Hussein was paying $20,000 to each family of suicide bombers in Israel. Polish troops found a stockpile of chemical weapons in Iraq that terrorists were attempting to buy. The 9/11 commission concluded that there WAS a working relationship of al Queda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. British intelligence has again affirmed that Iraq WAS seeking yellow cake uranium in Niger. Saddam's previous attempts at nuclear weaponry was bombed by Israel int eh 1980s. Iraq used chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds. Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. Iraq violated every single term of the cease fire of 1991 and all resolutions against it for 12 years. Iraq had many months to transport, bury or destory their WMDs while the U.S. debated the issue at the UN.

So, you can keep saying that Bush didn't connect the dots BEFORE 9/11 and let civilians die in the streets of NY, but that now he should NOT connect any dots no mater what all you want.

But the fact is this. He didn't lie. 9/11 changed everything.

No one should feel "comfortable" about a family member dying - anywhere and I never said they should. However, it's a different story to say that Bush killed their son, which is horseshit.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by jhale667
I like how you have to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a 'Anti-Bush left-wingers', just like W. tries to say that anyone who criticizes him is 'unpatriotic', and then cheney plays on the fear vote and says basically "If you don't re-elect US, we'll get hit by the terrorists again". It's fucking pathetic. Nobody (at least anyone I talk to Repub or Dem) thinks we should just cut and run out of there. The FACT of the matter is W. MISREPRESENTED the reasons for going over there (everyone agrees Saddam is an ass, but as far as being a credible threat, no), but face it...that was all about OIL and Halliburton (oh no, he brought up the 'H' word!) and he LIED. Why can't you admit that? Why are we facing such tough opposition there NOW, when the Iraqis were surrendering to CAMERA CREWS in the Gulf War? Because we RIGHT to go there then, they SUPPORTED us( my best friend is in the USAF, has been there BOTH times...the Iraqis were HAPPY TO SEE US THE 1st TIME)...and we didn't finish the job. We were supposed to 'liberate' them then...and we didn't. Bush Sr. left that fuck in power, and Junior (on a personal vendetta for daddy, coupled with his oil interests) wanted to go in there BEFORE 9/11!!! Anybody remember that?!?! Go ahead, call me a 'leftist' just because I can see W.'s full of shit.

Show me the quote where Bush said that anyone that disagrees with him is unpatriotic. What Cheney said was nothing different than what the Democrats have been saying – that Cheney and Bush have made the U.S. LESS safe and added to the numbers of terrorists in the world. Just that when Cheney says it , the press pees their pants.

I’m GLAD (seriously) that you agree that we should not cut and run out of Iraq, because Kerry and his party thinks we should and the terrorists and Baathists in Iraq know that.

Bush never misrepresented anything. Like I said in an earlier post, he was doing his job as Commander in Chief – “connecting the dots” as the Dems insisted he do. If your intelligence service tells you something do you believe it or not? If you act on it are you then “lying” when you relate this same intelligence to the world as justification for the invasion of Iraq? That’s lying? Why wasn’t Saddam a credible threat. Don’t you agree that 19 men with box cutters proved to be a devastating threat the U.S.?

Ah, so we’re back to this war being about oil and Haliburton. So why aren’t the profits of the oil being pumped out of Iraq now going into the pockets of the U.S. and/or Bush? Is Cheney still employed by Haliburton? Wasn’t Haliburton used by Clinton in the Balkans?

Why are we facing such tough opposition in Iraq now? Because we control the whole country. I don’t get you, you are contradicting yourself. First you criticize George Bush in 1991 for “not finishing the job” and taking Saddam out – even though he had no mandate from your precious UN to do so. But now, after 12 years of violations of every cease fire and UN resolution, and credible intelligence that he was a gathering threat, it was totally wrong to take out Saddam. If we were facing truly “tough: opposition in Iraq millions of Iraqis would be under arms fighting us – they aren’t. This is a fight against Iranian and al Quaeda - backed terrorist thugs and we are winning. The vast majority of Iraqis are glad we liberated their country.

The Iraqi conscripts that were surrendering to camera crews in 1991 are the same ones who dropped their weapons and ran in 2004. They are just as happy to see us now but since the major media doesn’t want to show anything positive about what is going on in Iraq you think it’s all negative.

Yes, you are a leftist.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Angel
What do you mean "tried"? Seems to me you guys lost that one... actually the REAL losers from 1812 were the Native Americans.

Didn't we capture Toronto during that war?

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

All of U.S. intelligence, the intelligence services of France, Britain, Egypt, Jordan and many other countries said Iraq has and was developing WMDs. Russia knew that Iraq was planning attacks against the U.S. and informed us. Mubarkek told Tommy Franks that U.S. troops would probably be atacked with chemicals weapons if we invaded. Hussein was paying $20,000 to each family of suicide bombers in Israel. Polish troops found a stockpile of chemical weapons in Iraq that terrorists were attempting to buy. The 9/11 commission concluded that there WAS a working relationship of al Queda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. British intelligence has again affirmed that Iraq WAS seeking yellow cake uranium in Niger. Saddam's previous attempts at nuclear weaponry was bombed by Israel int eh 1980s. Iraq used chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds. Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. Iraq violated every single term of the cease fire of 1991 and all resolutions against it for 12 years. Iraq had many months to transport, bury or destory their WMDs while the U.S. debated the issue at the UN.

Those are the parts of the story the anti-Bush crowd seems to convienently forget...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Those are the parts of the story the anti-Bush crowd seems to convienently forget...

And what the Busheep conveniently forget is that UN inspectors, led by a US Marine (and Republican no less) inspected Iraq thoroughly in 1998, found no evidence of weapons, and continued to find no weapons when they returned in 2002.

[jhale667]

[Originally posted by Sgt Schultz]
"I’m GLAD (seriously) that you agree that we should not cut and run out of Iraq, because Kerry and his party thinks we should and the terrorists and Baathists in Iraq know that."

Now, how can I be a true 'leftist' if we AGREE on something? I'm probably way more conservative then you think. I have not heard Kerry suggest we should just straight pull OUT though. He's actually FOUGHT in a war remember? Anybody knows that'd be a bad strategy.

"Bush never misrepresented anything. Like I said in an earlier post, he was doing his job as Commander in Chief – “connecting the dots” as the Dems insisted he do. If your intelligence service tells you something do you believe it or not?"

Ok, but this is the same guy who GOT warnings about Al-Quaeda planning to use airplanes against us but did NOTHING because 'they didn't say where or when' ---I said it in a previous thread---does anybody ever get (ultra-specific) advance warning of a 'surprise' attack?

"Why wasn’t Saddam a credible threat."

Ok, perhaps I mis-spoke on that. My buddy DID see WMDs in the gulf war, he figures they're buried like the fighter planes they found. Lotta sand there! So he COULD have become a threat ----farther down the line. But OSAMA was/is the IMMEDIATE credible threat. But W. DID fudge it to make it seem like they were in cahoots moreso than was the actual case. And more than one former administration official has stated he WANTED to go into Iraq BEFORE 9/11. I think we should have finished in Afghanistan first. Now we've got TWO failed states on our hands.

"Don’t you agree that 19 men with box cutters proved to be a devastating threat the U.S.?"

Goes back to my point that they KNEW the nutbags were going to hijack planes, and airline security wasn't massively tightened until after 9/11. Calling it 'the biggest intelligence failure in U.S. history' is NOT an over-statement.

"Ah, so we’re back to this war being about oil and haliburton. So why aren’t the profits of the oil being pumped out of Iraq now going into the pockets of the U.S. and/or Bush? Is Cheney still employed by Haliburton? Wasn’t Haliburton used by Clinton in the Balkans?"

Maybe so, but it's kinda funny that Halliburton's getting ALL the big contracts over there now...gotta admit it looks fishy, huh? And how do YOU know where the money's going? As far as Cheney's 'employment' you and I both know he couldn't run a corporation and be V.P. Obvious conflict of interest. Also notice the FIRST thing they did over there was secure the oil fields. Probably(partially) because it took YEARS to repair the damage Saddam did when he torched them in the Gulf War, but it does show where the priorities were/are.

"Why are we facing such tough opposition in Iraq now? Because we control the whole country. I don’t get you, you are contradicting yourself. First you criticize George Bush in 1991 for “not finishing the job” and taking Saddam out – even though he had no mandate from your precious UN to do so."

'MY' precious U.N.? WTF? And again, didn't say it was wrong to take him out. It was wrong to exaggerate his involvement in 9/11 to justify the invasion. Which even some in W.'s own party are saying he did. And Senior originally fucked it up, mandate or no.

"But now, after 12 years of violations of every cease fire and UN resolution, and credible intelligence that he was a gathering threat, it was totally wrong to take out Saddam. If we were facing truly “tough: opposition in Iraq millions of Iraqis would be under arms fighting us – they aren’t. This is a fight against Iranian and al Quaeda - backed terrorist thugs and we are winning. The vast majority of Iraqis are glad we liberated their country."

Again, Saddam is a piece of shit. No argument there. And your OWN keyword there is 'GATHERING' threat. Not immediate. But you have to admit we're facing WAY more opposition now...if they (whatever segment of the population there) didn't look at us as 'invaders' Al-Queada and Iran couldn't FIND anyone to support their fucked-up cause.



"The Iraqi conscripts that were surrendering to camera crews in 1991 are the same ones who dropped their weapons and ran in 2004. They are just as happy to see us now but since the major media doesn’t want to show anything positive about what is going on in Iraq you think it’s all negative."

I don't think it's ALL negative. I have a friend who just got back from there. He did meet some Iraqis that THANKED him. They caught some of the same people SHOOTING at them the next night, but hey.....I think people make the mistake that just because someone doesn't support W.'s rationale for invading (AT THE TIME) means they don't support the troops. I do. They're there now, and we have to finish the job, or leave an even bigger cluster-fuck behind. I just want W. to admit he lied.

"Yes, you are a leftist."

---Well, fucking SUE me. .