In sight, in mind
by M. Stewart 
There were 2,819 people killed in 9/11 attacks in New York City. Just 289 bodies were found intact. Add those who died at the Pentagon, and you get a total of 2,973 dead Americans. President Bush’s response was to invade Afghanistan and later Iraq, where over 3,000 more Americans have been killed. In 2006 alone, 23,000 Iraqi civilians and police officers died violently, more than 17,000 of them in the last six months. What do we have to show for it? (See above photo.)
Osama bin Laden, the Islamic terrorist responsible for the 9/11 attacks, remains at large. Saddam Hussein, the secular Iraqi dictator who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, has been hanged. Thirsty for still more blood, President Bush is expected to present a “new plan” for Iraq on Wednesday, one that may involve sending 20,000 more troops to war.
By now, it is fruitless to listen to mindless Bush supporters on the issue of Iraq. They have made it clear that they will support the administration no matter how many Americans must die. Why? Because of some bizarre, twisted sense of blind patriotism, they simply refuse to admit their president could be wrong. They are satisfied that the river of blood has been diverted to other side of the world.
The barbaric hanging of Saddam Hussein is perhaps the most fitting symbol of Bush’s war. Did Saddam “deserve” to die for his “crimes against humanity”? Maybe, but how does one rationally come to this decision? What constitutes a crime against humanity”? How does a person qualify for such infamy?
Naturally, it helps to be on the losing side and be captured by hostile forces, but is there not some objective measurement? Is it the number of people you ordered killed? Is it the identity of your victims? Is it how you killed them? Are political leaders exempt from all responsibility in deaths that come as a result of their orders? Apparently not. Just ask Saddam.
We must face the fact that the only reason President Bush hasn’t been tried and convicted of crimes against humanity is that he has not been captured by hostile forces. There has been no checkmate on our king. That, I think, is the thin line that separates the war criminal from the respectable leader—little else. It’s all a matter of perspective, of point of view. It’s about who can protect their king from personal jeopardy, not about what that king actually does.
I know, I know. The story is that it was the Iraqi government that executed Saddam Hussein “Old West” style—that the United States had nothing to do with it. They, not we, are the barbarians who put a rope around his neck and watched him dangle. We are too sophisticated for such things. Our sensibilities are too refined to actually see such a thing. Out of sight, out of mind.
Well, I thought maybe it would be good for us all to have a look at some of those cell-phone images of Saddam’s freshly wrung neck. Why? For the same reason I ran a picture of a dead “Islamic combatant” with his head blown apart like a watermelon a while back: just so we are forced to look at it.
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard my townsfolk say things like, “I say we quit pissin’ around just nuke ‘em,” or “We should kill every last one of them towel heads.” Of course this brand of justice makes sense to those who think of ultraviolence as a video game or a movie. Click here and blow everything up.
Exit game?
[Yes] [No] [Cancel]
In days of yore, public executions were not uncommon. At best, a few hundred bloodthirsty commoners would crowd around the scaffold, the chopping block, or the stake to watch the condemned dangle at the end of a rope, have his/her head chopped off by an ax-wielding madman, or burn to death on the way to Hell. These days, we can watch a man hanged or have his head sawed off on You Tube. Anyone with access to a computer can see such things.
Yes, there will be those who will denounce me for presenting these images of Saddam Hussein’s execution, even though it’s old news. Some will say, “You’ve finally gone too far! I’ll never visit this site again!” I expect that. The mainstream commercial media avoid these types of images for a reason. But I want you to look at it. This is what it’s about. It’s not a game. Execution, death, horror, blood—that’s what war is. And as long as you don’t have to see it, it’s easy to “support.”
In sight, in mind.
There were 2,819 people killed in 9/11 attacks in New York City. Just 289 bodies were found intact. Add those who died at the Pentagon, and you get a total of 2,973 dead Americans. President Bush’s response was to invade Afghanistan and later Iraq, where over 3,000 more Americans have been killed. In 2006 alone, 23,000 Iraqi civilians and police officers died violently, more than 17,000 of them in the last six months. What do we have to show for it? (See above photo.)
Osama bin Laden, the Islamic terrorist responsible for the 9/11 attacks, remains at large. Saddam Hussein, the secular Iraqi dictator who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, has been hanged. Thirsty for still more blood, President Bush is expected to present a “new plan” for Iraq on Wednesday, one that may involve sending 20,000 more troops to war.
By now, it is fruitless to listen to mindless Bush supporters on the issue of Iraq. They have made it clear that they will support the administration no matter how many Americans must die. Why? Because of some bizarre, twisted sense of blind patriotism, they simply refuse to admit their president could be wrong. They are satisfied that the river of blood has been diverted to other side of the world.
The barbaric hanging of Saddam Hussein is perhaps the most fitting symbol of Bush’s war. Did Saddam “deserve” to die for his “crimes against humanity”? Maybe, but how does one rationally come to this decision? What constitutes a crime against humanity”? How does a person qualify for such infamy?
Naturally, it helps to be on the losing side and be captured by hostile forces, but is there not some objective measurement? Is it the number of people you ordered killed? Is it the identity of your victims? Is it how you killed them? Are political leaders exempt from all responsibility in deaths that come as a result of their orders? Apparently not. Just ask Saddam.
We must face the fact that the only reason President Bush hasn’t been tried and convicted of crimes against humanity is that he has not been captured by hostile forces. There has been no checkmate on our king. That, I think, is the thin line that separates the war criminal from the respectable leader—little else. It’s all a matter of perspective, of point of view. It’s about who can protect their king from personal jeopardy, not about what that king actually does.
I know, I know. The story is that it was the Iraqi government that executed Saddam Hussein “Old West” style—that the United States had nothing to do with it. They, not we, are the barbarians who put a rope around his neck and watched him dangle. We are too sophisticated for such things. Our sensibilities are too refined to actually see such a thing. Out of sight, out of mind.
Well, I thought maybe it would be good for us all to have a look at some of those cell-phone images of Saddam’s freshly wrung neck. Why? For the same reason I ran a picture of a dead “Islamic combatant” with his head blown apart like a watermelon a while back: just so we are forced to look at it.I don’t know how many times I’ve heard my townsfolk say things like, “I say we quit pissin’ around just nuke ‘em,” or “We should kill every last one of them towel heads.” Of course this brand of justice makes sense to those who think of ultraviolence as a video game or a movie. Click here and blow everything up.
Exit game?
[Yes] [No] [Cancel]
In days of yore, public executions were not uncommon. At best, a few hundred bloodthirsty commoners would crowd around the scaffold, the chopping block, or the stake to watch the condemned dangle at the end of a rope, have his/her head chopped off by an ax-wielding madman, or burn to death on the way to Hell. These days, we can watch a man hanged or have his head sawed off on You Tube. Anyone with access to a computer can see such things.
Yes, there will be those who will denounce me for presenting these images of Saddam Hussein’s execution, even though it’s old news. Some will say, “You’ve finally gone too far! I’ll never visit this site again!” I expect that. The mainstream commercial media avoid these types of images for a reason. But I want you to look at it. This is what it’s about. It’s not a game. Execution, death, horror, blood—that’s what war is. And as long as you don’t have to see it, it’s easy to “support.”
In sight, in mind.
posted by M. | 10:16 AM
90 Comments:
It is a horrible shame what human beings do to other human beings. I think the hanging was justified for the sake of the Iraqies; however, they would not have had this justice had our government not captured him.
I do not believe this was God's plan for his world.
jaw
What's your point ? Do you want Saddam still alive ? Do you still want him in power ? What should his penalty be for killing his own people ? Do you think we should have gone into Afganistan ? Should we have let Saddam shoot at our planes everyday ? We actually did win the first Gulf War and with the surrender came certin conditions that had to be met. Should we have let Saddam defy those conditions. What did the men who died in the first Gulf War die for, if we continued to let Saddam string us along on meeting the conditions that ended that war? I know it's easy to run your mouth about Bush but there are some of us who still thing that a democracy in the Middle East is worth fighting for . My son has been in the Air Force serving in the Middle East 3 times and people like you show nothing but disrespect to the kids serving.
I don't see it as disrespect for our soldiers, just an objection to the reason they're there.
You've finally gone too far. I'll never come to this site again.
If you have an objection to why they are there , then please answer the questions from 11:00 .
To 11 a.m.--If you really think bringing democracy to the Middle East is worth the life of your son, then you and I will never agree on anything.
Matt , The world was lucky you didn't have a voice in the decision for WWI and WWII. I can just here your excuses back then too.
Matt , Your do noting attitude for the MIddle East is what brought us 911.
There is no comparison between Iraq and WWII. The United States was attacked by the Japanese and subsequently declared war on the Japanese. No matter how much you might need to believe it, Iraq did not attack the United States.
To 11:53--
I have never espoused a "do-nothing" attitude toward the Middle East. That does not mean I support a diversionary war in Iraq, nor does it mean that war is the only thing a nation can "do." Lest you think I am a mere peacenik, I supported the inital foray in Afghanistan because it had a clear purpose, even though it failed to yield the capture of bin Laden. The Taliban regime clearly supported and provided a base of operations for those responsible for the attack on our country. The truth (remember truth?) is that most of those involved in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis, yet no one in the administration felt the need to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia, so why pay so high a price to bring democracy to Iraq--a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks? This question has been left unanswered by the administration.
All we have accomplished in Iraq is to further destabilize the Middle East, draw terrorists to Iraq, and create a hopeless civil war. If you support the Bush administration's Iraq policy, the burden is on you to tell us why. What sense does it make? What does it have to do with 9/11? Why is it so important to bring democracy there and not other more important non-democratic nations like Saudi Arabia or Syria?
In other words, make some effort justifying your own beliefs rather than launching knee-jerk, baseless attacks on others who refuse to support Bush's obvious failures--failures that he now wishes to expand.
Matt , Can you answer 11:00 questions ?
Matt , Answer this too. If we thought that the Taliban was going to attack us on 9/11 , should we have attacked them first?
OK Matt, let's say you have convinced us to say Bush is/was/will be or whatever wrong. Do you propose, except for bashing Bush and saying I told you so, that we pull out? If so, how would you propose we do that? And then after that, what do we do?
By the way, please answer 11:00. Thanks.
Hey Matt...almost forgot. Your pictures did not offend me actually I would have preferred the Iraqies pulled him behind a pickup...alive of course, until dead. That is usually how they do it. Maybe we influenced that decision as well!
I believe that before President Bush leaves office he will have found Bin Ladin also. There is always a connection between terrorist and I'm not sorry to say that Saddam got just what he deserved. He is no different in his tactics than Hitler and look what havoc two men have caused innocent people.
To say that we should not be over there fighting this war is a slap in the face of our loyal servicemen and women who risks their lives everyday for our freedom. How do you think it makes our servcie people feel to hear such comments from the people they protect.
jaw
Just another thought!!!!!
Helicopters attack Somalia militant suspects. This article was on Yahoo home page, Jan 9, 2007. The article states, the US believed an Al-Qaida target was there. I think the key word here is believed! This sure sounds similar to Iraq, no? Was our actions correct or flawed in this case, Matt?
Wow, I go away for a little while and have several questions to answer. Ok, here goes...
As for 11:00's question on Saddam. Whether he should have been executed is an internal Iraqi matter. If that's what they needed to do and it was carried out by Iraqi law, it's fine with me. In the end, it's none of my business.
If we thought the Taliban was going to attack us, should we have attacked first? First of all, the Taliban didn't attack the U.S. However, I believe that if we have clear evidence that someone (anyone) intends to attack the United States, the government should do whatever is necessary to prevent it, and that includes pre-emptive military strikes. If the implication is that the invasion of Iraq can be justified on that basis, there was no evidence whatsoever that Saddam intended to attack the U.S. None. Everybody knows that except for the Bush apologists, who will believe anything the administration says. Bush needed to divert our attention away from his failure to capture bin Laden. That's the reason he invaded Iraq.
As for the Somalia attacks, if there was evidence of an al Qaida base in operation there, yes, we should eliminate it. At least that's an attack on a true enemy.
As for an Iraq exit strategy, I would exit the country immediately and support our allies within Iraq with money, military hardware, and expertise, but not American lives. It's their country; let them die for it. I have maintained all along the the war on terror should be managed largely by the CIA as a vast covert operation that takes no prisoners.
As for bringing democracy to the Middle East, forget it. It's not our business. People have to earn democracy with their own blood, like we did. First, however, Middle Eastern nations will have to let go of the religious fanaticism. Democracy and religion do not mix. That's why our founding fathers set up a secular government.
To jaw--
I don't get it. If you want to send American service men and women to die for nothing, you're "supporting the troops." If you want to get them out of harm's way and save their lives, you are "slapping them in the face." Yours is a value system I cannot accept.
Exactly M.
Bring 'em home. We are achieving a big fat nothing over there. Just sitting them out in the open desert as target practice for bored religious zealots to take pot shots at. It's a huge joke, and it's on us.
Bring 'em home now.
"Dying for nothing?" That's a pretty bold statement Matt. Also, as far as how many died on September 11th and then in the middle east, it's not an eye for an eye situation, it's a U.S. safety, middle eastern safey thing. I believe our founding fathers risked their life for democracy, so would you have prefered they wouldn't? Do you enjoy tyranny?
Exactly, the founding father's risked their lives to secure democracy for their own people. They were traitors to the crown and most likely would have been executed had the British won. They risked their lives indeed, as did many more average citizens who took up arms for home rule.
My point is just that: We cherish the bravery of the founders and the political freedom they secured for us. They didn't do it for someone else. These people fought and died to run the tyrant out of their own land. Moral of story: You have to win your own freedom.
Your answer at 12:23 in responding to 11:53..You say as you have said in the past, “if you support the Bush’s administration, the burden is to say why” . If you could get away from your obsession of attacking Bush, you might just realize you maybe wrong about what is being said. I said I am against withdrawing, until Iraq can defend herself. This is not defending anything other than winning. If we were to leave we would be permitting Iraq to be imprisoned by yet another Saddam likeness. You were right, this is not a game. And, in my opinion definitely one that we can not afford to lose. I know , nothing was found, Iraq couldn’t or wasn’t involved, but at this point, does that really matter? I asked you what would you do and you said withdraw and support our allies . Well, then what? Battle the insurgents from here? The Democrats, now in power, agree with you on withdrawing but offer nothing after that. By the way what will you ever say when, not if, evident is uncovered to support the actions taken. Probably nothing more than I erred! That day will come, bet on it.
Anyone who thinks we're in Iraq for any other reason than make money or control the region must also believe that anyone can become president of the U.S., the tooth fairy exists, and Ronald Reagan extemporized any of his coherent speeches.
11:00 asked why troops were in Iraq. The answer to that is easily looked up. Bush (daddy) gave the go-ahead for the Kuwait invasion by Sadaam, then used that invasion as an excuse to attack Iraq. Clinton trumped up an excuse as did Bush (sonny).
We used the stupidity of most Americans after 9/11 to invade Iraq. If maybe having weapons was a reason to die, then we should have invaded korea by now, right? The Taliban wasn't in Iraq until we made it easier for them to come in (by creating a cluster-fuck in Iraq with our invasion).
I'm not sure why you respond to the idiots (and nothing more than bullies) who support death to those they don't understand. The more I read this site, I suppose it's because you're surrounded by the morons every day.
I used to respect the Wiz's because he had the balls to dissent here but I'm disgusted by anyone who'd like to see a death. If it happened to someone they loved, they'd scream and yell. They'd probably do that if Bush were strung up or dragged behind something.
I hope one day some human beings will move to ohio.
I personally feel that they should run these photos every so often just so we don't forget. But the left coast media and the Hollywood crowd won't permit it. Probably has something to do about someone's rights. These are not for the faint of heart. You know the ones where people were jumping to their deaths and splattering on the sidewalks of the big apple like pumpkins. Oh well they probably deserved it or something maybe because they were Americans or capitalists you know the type.
http://vikingphoenix.com/photos/911-2003/911-2003-1.html
To anonymous:
Personally I dont care if your son or daughter is in the Air Force serving overseas. Its an all volunteer force.
What I do care about is our government lying to the American people and world and marching into Iraq as an invading, imperialistic force and attempting to alter centuries old mindset and force our ways upon theirs.
I most certainly do care that Bush is a liar and a piece of slime and he is spending my grandchilds money accomplishing absolutely NOTHING more than getting Americans killed and many more innocent Iraqis killed.
Wheres Osama Bin Laden?
Anyone remember him??
We need to realize that war, especially an expensive one like this one, transfers money from the taxpayers to big businesses, individuals and other countries. In case you haven't figured it out yet your Washington representatives don't care what you want or think. They do what they please and the majority of the time it's not in your best interest.
I totally agree with Matt that we are accomplishing absolutely nothing in Iraq. Our military are not fighting for our freedoms at all. I believe our war dead have died for nothing but a worthless cause.
For a exit strategy: Just get out as quickly as possible. Who cares what happens to the Iraqis, we owe them nothing.
8:20, I agree with you. What a liar and murderer Bush is. WAKE UP People!
If you come marching into my fucking house and start killing, raping, and generally changing my landscape, you owe me something.
OK let me try this again for Matt to anwser. Should we have let Saddam shoot at our planes everyday ? We actually did win the first Gulf War and with the surrender came certin conditions that had to be met. Should we have let Saddam defy those conditions. What did the men who died in the first Gulf War die for, if we continued to let Saddam string us along on meeting the conditions that ended that war? Also if Bush is a liar , is every one else who thought there was WMD liars also . This would include the UN , the Clintons , Kerry , Kennedy , the Germans , the French , Was this the mother of all conspiraces? If Saddam did have WMD and gave them to teerorist Matt would blame Bush that he didn't act.
Before you call Bush a liar and a murderer remember there was almost unanimous support for the war in the house and senate. Congress supplied the money so their is plenty of blame to go around republican and democrat.
Would you shoot at planes over your country if you were its leader? Why do the conservatives only recognize the U.N. when it benefits their agendas? If we followed the U.N. and recognized Israel as terrorists, 9/11 would never have ocurred and we woul;d have to have invented another reason for going into Iraq.
Question: Should we be concerned about Saddam being hung? Answer: Who cares! It's none of our business.
10:02 you are really mixed up. I don't think you even know which end to blow into.
Anyone who died in U.S. led aggression in Iraq (under Bush I and II) are pawns. To praise them, applaud them, or do anything other than pity the ones who now realize what they mean to their leaders is like applauding the virgin sacrificed to the volcano or "supporting" a goat which is being prepared for ritual sacrifice.
10:06: What completely foolish unsubstantiated statements.
10:05, you're either Matt or one of the regulars. You say i'm mixed up, but you don't say about what. You just try to make fun of me but you don't address the fact that the U.S. picks and chooses the U.N. resolutions it wants to "follow", using them for its purposes and that we never had any legitimate reason to go to Iraq. Hell, the closest we ever came to giving a legit reason is when Clinton flicked its ears for supposedly trying to assassinate Bush I.
The mixed-up people are the ones who would support a liar-Democrat or Republican.
10:08. Yes, it is my opinion, but would you feel like anything but a pawn if you wanted to be part of an effort to do good and became a foot-soldier specifically charged with trying to hold together a big fuckup which benefits no one but a few of your commander-in-chief's pals?
Matt, I never said to send our troops over there do die for nothing. They are over there fighting for freedom, freedom for the U.S. and other countries because I believe that all terrorism is connected in some way.
My point is, because they are in Iraq we need to support our troops 100%. To pull them out now would make us look like cowards who tucked our tails and ran. Can you imagine what other terror would be visited upon us?
Does anyone know (or seemingly care) how many terrorist attacks have been diverted by our government?
jaw
Ladies and gents, this is the mentality you're dealing with:
"They are over there fighting for freedom, freedom for the U.S. and other countries because I believe that all terrorism is connected in some way."
I haven't heard logic like that since transubstantiation was explained to me. Because this person believes something impossible, soldiers aren't dying in vain.
His real beliefs are hinted at with "To pull the [troops] out now would make us look like cowards who tucked our tails and ran." This kind of thinking is exactly what LBJ, Nixon, and the Bushes want: Better to be wrong than to look like pussies.
Matt,
In regards to your 2:09 statement to Jaws, I couldn't agree more.
Mat, I can't believe that I am disagreeing with you but I am.My oldest son has been to Iraq twice and my youngest will be going back again in May.My oldest is now serving in Korea another hot spot.As much as I don't want my sons over there I must also face a fact that people who are appressed deserve to be able to have freedom to make choices it is their God given right.When someone takes that freedom away then it is their oblogation to fight for that freedom and if they need help why shouldn't the U.S. be the one to help them.great changes have occured in Iraq which would not have happened if we were not there. Communication with the outside world has grown enormously with satelite dishes and a free radio station.
Freedom is always paid with the price of young innocent people and that is a shame.I don't want my boys over there or anyone elses but our influence could change the world one day for something better.Sure there are insurgents who want to stop democracy but it is no different than any other time.We had insurgents during the Revolutionary War here as well as the French Revolution.People are always trying to take advantage of a new government so that they can gain power and influence.Perhaps that has been going on as long as the world has been in existence.When though should we decide when enough is enough and pull out?I'll tell you when Mat,when the new form government is able to finally rid itself of the insurgents and can defend its self.When will that happen?Thats easy when we play the rules of the insugents and no longer put up with the dictates of a fair war.these people are nasty people who don't care who gets in their way to power.If we just once got down to their level they would be running scared.Thats what we didn't do in Vietnam and thats why we lost.The enemy was friend one minute and foe the next and so we should treat all as the enemy.
No Mat,we can't afford to leave Iraq,no more than we can afford to lose our country to those who want to take away our freedoms here.Would you want those who seek to take away your religous rights to gain power?To tell you that you can't have prayer in public places or the 10 commandments on public buildings?It's what our country was built on once Mat yet there are some who want to take away that right here.we are all fighting our own battles Mat,but freedom is never worth losing not one ounce.Human kind must have the rights that God gave them which is the power to choose.Think about it Mat before you throw away your rights right here in our own country.The basic free unalienable rights of man are not just for Americans but the world Mat.No I don't suggest we overthrow all governments but Iraq was overdo when Saddam shot at our planes and killed his own people.He didn't care who he hurt because he was a dictator who thought he could rule the world one day.we can't afford another one of those Hitler types Mat.Think it through I'm sure you'll change your mind.
RE: Before you call Bush a liar and a murderer remember there was almost unanimous support for the war in the house and senate. Congress supplied the money so their is plenty of blame to go around republican and democrat.
Are you insane or just unaware? As I recall we were LIED to about why we went to war!! We were assured that there were WMD's in Iraq. Remember?
None to be found! FLIP FLIP!
Since we couldnt get that pathetic lie in gear, somehow, Bush did a 180 and said we were there to change their government and alter centuries old mindset, which, if he had done his history, is failing miserably.
This is VietNam reincarnate.
To Anon. 10:05--I don't post anonymously.
To KD--Yes, we disagree. I don't think overthrowing another country's dictator is worth the life of one American, let alone 3,000 and counting. Democracy should not be forced on any nation at the point of a gun, especially in the Middle East, where religion rules politics. Given current conditions in Iraq, I see no possibility of establishing a stable democratic government there. As such, the war is little more than a pointless, deadly game.
Matt , I take it we shouldn't have helped the Jews against the Germans either. Do you teach your children to ignore others when they need help. wow
WHERES THE WELLSVILLE ROOM
KD
If the U.S. helped unilaterally you might have a point. There are many more places around the globe in need of regime change. We should help them first. Foremost, if we are going to help, we should be honest about why we're doing it. My son works at a large grocery store but I don't support their bad business practices blindly and make up reasons for why they should behave like that.
Matt, from your 3:20 post:
Pick up a history book, we didn't win our democracy by ourselves.
It's nice to help other nations, especially when our safety is at stake.
Wow there's a lot of fun conspiracy theories in here, I'm not sure if I can touch on them all.
Iraq is all about money.
So then, where's the money? What are you basing this on? Because they happen to have oil? When we went to Vietnam no one said we were trying to go logging.
Bush lied to us.
His motive being? The money that we're not getting? We had intelligence reports, Bush had no reason to lie, he had plenty of reason to want to protect our nation. If three intelligence agencies gave a report that someone is harboring weapons and terrorists and the UN was denied being able to investigate plus they're shooting down planes, we did the same thing. Also, Congress had the same reports Bush did, so he didn't lie when they voted to go.
It's the troops fault they're over there.
Because they signed up to support our nation? Heaven forbid. You can't join the military and then tell them you disagree with the current war so you don't want to go. They have to follow orders. If we don't follow orders at our jobs, we get fired, they get fired then jailed. Their job isn't to question, it's to follow orders. Maybe that sounds harsh, but that's realistic as to our military's purpose.
Where is Ali??
sending in 20,000 more troops to a war that is almost universally condemned is just more of Bush's middle finger politics. It is not disrespectful or unpatriotic to want to save the lives of American children. It is simply the right thing to do.
8:41 I agree with everything you said!
10:38 CC I don't agree with you, but, you are entitled to your opinion! Maybe, just maybe the WH knows something you don't.
7:41
Get a life! There's more to this site than Wellsville.
yeah, why even click on this room. Go sit in your pavillion.
I thougth that I wouldtake a stab at answering 11:00s questions to Mr. Stewart.
What's your point ? Answer: The Bush Administration made some monstrous mistakes and miscalculations that embroiled our country in a war that is dramatically draining our resources and is not closing in on any achievable goals. Our Army is stretched to the breaking point; our heroic reserve units that support Army combat regiments are past the breaking point. Terrorist enclaves now have a new place to hide, train, and plan attacks as Iraq heads towards civil war. Bin Laden’s gang is alive and well and gaining strength in Afghanistan and the Taliban is also becoming stronger and making a push to return to power. We are further away from a safer world today than 9/10 because of the Bush Administration’s Iraqi invasion and execution of the Iraqi War.
Do you want Saddam still alive ? Answer: Personally, I would hope that all despotic world leaders would be removed from power, but it is not for me to decide.
Do you still want him in power ? Answer: No, he was a tyrant.
What should his penalty be for killing his own people ? Answer: That is up to the Iraqi judicial system and not for me to decide. I personally believe that he got what he deserved.
Do you think we should have gone into Afghanistan ? Answer: Absolutely, and we should have concentrated our efforts there to eliminate an environment that allowed Al-Qaida to thrive. Also, we should have lent much grater help to support the fledgling Afghani Karzai government. If you have been reading the news lately, you will find that the Taliban has recently gained strength and is making a comeback. Why, because we’re a little too busy in Iraq.
Prior to our arrival, the Taliban waged human rights atrocities on Afghani people, particularly women and children. Plus, they tried to eliminate the Shi’a Hazara ethnic group via ethnic cleansing. They are every bit as evil, if not more so, as Saddam’s secular government. And, they are terrorists that directly support other terrorist groups by allowing them sanctuary. Terrorist groups require a place to train and plan and they usually end up in places of unrest (e.g. Somalia, present day Iraq). For Al-Qaida to be allowed to operate in an area like Afghanistan under Taliban rule was a bonanza.
The Bush Administration should have concentrated our efforts in eliminating this despotic government and helping the Karzai government gain some foothold. As it stands now, Karzai cannot even leave his office for fear of execution. So…it looks like we are losing in Iraq AND Afghanistan. Ouch!
Should we have let Saddam shoot at our planes everyday ? Answer: No, but a better answer than invasion might have been strategic bombing. Plus, Iraqi missiles could not reach the altitutde that our recon planes were flying. They were not in danger.
We actually did win the first Gulf War and with the surrender came certin conditions that had to be met. Should we have let Saddam defy those conditions. Answer: No, but invading surely has not worked. The passive measures that were in place would have kept pressure on Saddam’s government without draining away our military and economic resources away from where they should have been all along, in Afghanistan.
What did the men who died in the first Gulf War die for, if we continued to let Saddam string us along on meeting the conditions that ended that war? Answer: They died to free the Kuwaiti government from Saddam’s unlawful invasion of that country. Oh, and let us not forget the cheap oil…
I know it's easy to run your mouth about Bush but there are some of us who still thing that a democracy in the Middle East is worth fighting for . My son has been in the Air Force serving in the Middle East 3 times and people like you show nothing but disrespect to the kids serving. Answer: Every American has a right to agree or disagree with our foreign policy. Disagreeing with the way the Bush Administration has handled 9/11 does not disrespect anyone in uniform. I happen to disagree and I happen to wear the uniform everyday.
To 11:44 . Wow what logic. We win the first Gulf War and they surrender under certain condition and you say that ok do what you want and shoot at our planes everyday and we won't do anything because we kicked you out of Kuwait.
12:03, that is not what I said at all.
Maybe you should read your response again because that is what is written.
11:44 If they died for cheap oil , where is the cheap oil? Good talking point though .
12:03/12:13 You are wrong. This is my exact response to the bombing question:
Should we have let Saddam shoot at our planes everyday ? Answer: No, but a better answer than invasion might have been strategic bombing. Plus, Iraqi missiles could not reach the altitutde that our recon planes were flying. They were not in danger.
My response begins with the word "no", maybe you missed that. I am here for meaningful dialogue. If you want to have a meaningful dialogue, then great. However, meaningful dialogue requires accuracy in one's comments.
Great post, 11:44.
So you would suggest strategic bombing. If you remember that is what we did. They would shoot at our planes and then we would bomb the place where they were shooting. That didn't seem to work.Any other suggestions. How about UN resolutions , never mind that didn't work either. How about UN inspectors , only they weren't allowed everywhere. Mean while we have every inteligence agency telling us he has WMD. The UN even had a list of what he had ( where did they go anyway ). So let's just let him shoot at us , they will probably miss anyway. Tell me where I can find some of that cheap oil to.
There is no cheap oil-there is just oil and no-bid contracts will help administration cronies make money from it just like they are making money from the war (that money that the fucking moron, 8:41, pretended to be curious about).
I think each post should be preceded with "Administration Supporter" (or retarded fuckwad) or "Administration Detractor" (or most likely retarded shithead).
Bush had no evidence of weapons that he showed the U.S. people unless you count the British warning about Nigerian yellowcake which was immediately pointed out as ludicrously false to Bush by his own intelligence organizations.
Once again, the Kuwait invasion was agreed upon by Bush I and the first Gulf War, no matter who supported it was bogus. Nonetheless, we don't follow the U.N. until we need an excuse (a bully's favorite tactic). We don't even pay our dues-should we be invaded?
Why does everyone on this site, after having their inconsistancies pointed out, ignore the corrections and make up a new excuse to be an asshole?
Our presence in Iraq is immoral and we are daily being judged by other countries for it. We've proven we are incomptent there and our only plan is to send 20,000 more targets. Brilliant.
Of course, the Dems (who we all celebrated taking back power) have no plan at all.
Until this nation starts electing men and women of intellect and backbone, we'll continue to be a nation of confused ditch-diggers.
What an ignorant individual 2:44 is. His points are overwhelmed by his poor manners and speech. Hey, clean up your act any maybe someone will pay attention.
Who's ignorant? You don't like his curse words, read around them. Or is it too convenient to ignore the points since he insulted you for being so stupid?
It's too inconvenient. Say, you must be one of those Wellsville maggots. Got back in your room and stay there!
Hey Matt , How about some equal time. Why don't you post those pictures of women and children laying in the streets after Saddam gassed them.
Hey Matt , How about some equal time. Why don't you show some pictures of the women and children lying in the streets after Saddam gassed them.
The "Two Wrongs Make a Right" Room.
Let me guess: When they were handing out brains, most of this area's citizens asked instead for gravy fries.
I think Bush just gave himself a way out of Iraq and threatened to cut and run.
You've got to admire that he plows on, totally disregarding his speech impediment.
Hindsight is 20/20. Oops we attacked Iraq, but a lot of good has come of it. Sorry we didn't find enough terrorists and WMDs for your liking, but hindsight is 20/20.
The U.S. is a great nation that does great things, if you don't like it move to IRAQ. Stop bashing our country.
9:55 AM, Yes, the US is a great country that does great things. It's also, in my opinion, done some very questionable things, the invasion of Iraq being one of them. Political leadership and it's decisions are a major factor in how other countries judge us. If NOBODY questioned the decisions of that leadership, it would be disasterous. One of the things that MAKES this country so great is called FREEDOM OF SPEACH.
People like 9:55 are the problem, "lemming" comes to mind. They don't deserve to live in a democratic nation.
Yeah 9:55, you're a lemming, you should follow people like 10:58 and all the people that he's blindly following. Stop loving your nation and be a lemming for people on the other side.
If we wouldn't have attacked Iraq , would Lybia have given up on it's WMD program?
I killed my wife and they locked me up. I found out she was cheating on me later but they still said it was wrong. A lot of you people understand it was okay (hindsight being 20/20). Can you make the governor see that, please?
9:55, next time you bitch about immigrants, shut your mouth, follow your country and its leaders (for it's a great country) and sit back and take it because the U.S. is great and right and shouldn't be questioned except if you move to another country.
2:35, Where do you see that I was bitching about immigrants? You see EVERYONE wants to live the AMERICAN way, including the immigrants, maybe that's why our troops are in IRAQ, you know so they can live this way also.
jw
jw, are you institutionalized? Not everyone wants to live "the American way" (Americans haven't yet legislated a complete "way" to live yet) and we're not in Iraq for anything Iraqis want (read the polls of Iraqi citizens-"things are worse" usually means someone is unhappy.
6:56 You watch to much TV, Ask someone whose been there and ask them what the Iraqi people want.
It doesn't matter what the Iraqi people want. It's none of our business.
Send them some gravy fries. That should solve everything. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm gravy fries!
7:27, I don't watch TV, I got the info from the foreign press. You probably listen to too much "talk" radio.
why would you 6:56 make the statement "are you institutionalized"? because someone has an opinion? some things just need to be said and you have a small mind. who do you think you are to critcize someone like that just because they have an opinion that is different than yours. do you get your info from the foreign press or the foreign legion! you sound like a dictator.
He probably said it because only a person with brain damage would think "everybody wants to live the AMERICAN way"
That statment and yours sound more like the propaganda of a dictator than his which at least pointed out some facts.
would you rather live anyother way?
Can sombody clear something up for me? Why is the US putting up so many billions of dollars for the war in Iraq? I thought that Iraq was going to use its oil to finance our help. What's up with all those billions of oil they have in reserve?
Do you know why Saadam had so many women? Because he was hung....hello? Is this thing on?
Post a Comment
<< Home