Draginol Draginol

The 2000 milestone in Iraq

▼

The 2000 milestone in Iraq

Some thoughts

from JoeUser Forums

In the battle of Okinawa, a small island in the Pacific ocean, over 12,000 Americans died and another 38,000 were seriously wounded.

Mind you, this was to take an island that was tiny and had a population less than part of Baghad. And we're still there today.

Luckily, Americans were a little bit tougher of skin back then.  We didn't shirk or slink away from paying a high price to do things that were important in a larger sense. 

2,000 Americans have died in Iraq over the past 3 years.  That's 1/6th as many people who died -- within the span of a few days -- in a single battle on a single island in World War II. 

Those Americans gave their lives in a cause they believed in.  In a cause that serves our country and even the rest of the world even if much of that world (those ironically many of whom were either our enemies or sat on the side-lines back in World War II) doesn't appreciate it. 

Those Americans were not sent there to find "WMD" or for "oil".  They were sent there to topple an evil, corrupt regime that had twice attacked its neighbors, had used whatever weapons it had at hand in war, was violating the cease fire from the previous war with the coaliation, and quite clearly was working its way through the so-called "Sanctions" to the day when it could restart programs to gain for itself horrific weapons to use or distribute to enemies. 

Those Americans were sent to a country that is literally in the middle of a region that is formenting people who want to exterminate not just every single American but the entire western way of life. 

Those Americans gave their lives to help put in its place a country that we hope will become democratic and representative but at the very least won't harbor terrorists who can plan at their leisure further attacks on this country.

Those Americans gave their lives as a part of a broader war on Islamic terror.  And while some don't see the connection between Iraq and Islamic militarism, the same could be said of not seeing the connection between the attack on Pearl Harbor and the US invasion of French North Africa.

Luckily, the greatest generation of Americans were made of sterner stuff than what today's Americans are apparently made of. They rolled up their sleaves and went to work and made possible the world we have today where we have the luxury to hyper-analyse every combat death that occurs in the name of securing freedom and security both there and at home.

The families and friends of those 2,000 men and women can hopefully take comfort that they gave their lives in a cause that was as noble and true as any cause that warriors have fought and died in.  As an American, I want to express appreciation for their sacrifice that has helped make all of us a bit safer and helped make the world a better place.

27,620 views 164 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top
What do you think America would do is another country sent fighter aircraft over the US? We were NEVER in any danger from Iraq even if that had had the WMD. Saddam knew what would happen if he attacked the US or any other major power. We attacked Iraq because Bush wanted to remove Saddam not because they were a danger. Even Gen Powell is now saying his assertions before the UN was an error. Bush and Cheney lied to the American people. We have created a place where terrorists operate and kill our military day after day. That place is called Iraq. There is no greater error a president can make then to put our military in danger for no good reason. Giving the Iraq people a chance to vote is NO reason to send Americans into war!
Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top
What do you think America would do is another country sent fighter aircraft over the US?


The big difference here Gene is that the US did not lose in a war, then promised in a armistice not to fire on the international forces sent to prevent ethnic cleansing. Which Saddam did attempted on the Southern Shiites after the first war and would have done on the Northern Kurds if he would have been successful at driving those aircraft out of the skies.

Saddam knew what would happen if he attacked the US or any other major power.


I do believe that is why some people are convinced that Saddam was using third parties to do his dirty work. The man was publicly giving $50,000 to each suicide bomb's family and was letting wanted Taliban/al-cida from Afghanistan receive free healthcare and diplomatic safety in Iraq.

Saddam didn't need to attack the US, because he had others he could assist/payoff to do it for him and people like you willing to give him a free pass every time one of his paid off assassins killed American's. The man tried to have a US President assassinated and in 1994 publicly stated it was Iraq's Islamic duty to Vaporize Tel-Aviv. Do you really believe when a person says “Vaporize”, they are not referring to nuclear weapons?
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top
Saddam was not linked to attacking the US. That is pure BS. Look at Iran and what they have said this week about Israel. They are a far greater danger to peace then Saddam. Bush attacked a country that was of no real danger to the United States while failing to finish the job elasware. Today another bomb killed 25 and 15 more of our military were killed this week. This war was predicated on a LIE that Bush and Cheney pushed on the American people. Saddam did not have the ability nor would he have attacked the U S even if he had WMD. To do so would have resulted in his death and he understood that. We have gotten bogged down in this was just like Bush 41 warned. Too bad the son was not as smart as his father.
Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top
Saddam was not linked to attacking the US. That is pure BS.


Cover your eyes all you want. But I would believe attempting to assassinate a President of the United States, giving free medical aid to people attacking US soldiers/civilians (while his own people are denied medical help) and shooting at international forces preventing him from causing genocide are indications of a threat. These are the things he openly did, I wonder where all those uncounted Billions from the oil for food program had went too. Again, he does not have to directly attack the US, when money and assistance to third parties will do just fine.

Look at Iran and what they have said this week about Israel.


Now your asking for the US to attack Iran? Interesting that back in 1994 Saddam was saying the same thing, but in your eyes Saddam's statements from then should be ignored. Hitler had been ignored when he planned to remove all Jews from the face of the Earth. Later we find out that he had murdered 6 Million Jews on his way to reaching his goal. People like you ignored Hitler when he made his statement and then would have us ignore Saddam too. I and the rest of the world are taking note of Iran (while IMO your just using it as an excuse at this time). More is being done now about Iran's statements by the international community, then those like you wanted do to Saddam when he made the same statement. For gods sakes some was even wanting to lift the sanctions.
Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top
yet, strangely enuff, it appears as if your opinions--including those expressed in the very article we are discussing--are somehow exempt.

yall are killin me here.


No, we state our opinions, we do not demand you agree with them. Better learn the difference. Or learn how to write that is not demanding that everyone agrees with you.

Sorry you cannot tell the difference between saying "I dont agree" and "if you dont agree with me you are stupid".

Probably a liberal trait.
Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top
at risk of hitting new heights of egotism and arrogance, i'm of the opinion you're so right it hurts. on 9/11, the countdown to the next attack started. without knowing how much time we have, i'm convinced the war presidency has wasted precious years as well as precious lives attempting something very few americans would have supported had the truth been told.


Please! Dont go Dabe on us! Get a effing grip!
Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top
long before i barfed, the rubberband connecting my head and arms to the rest of my doll-like body would snap and then you'd wind up having to explain how that happened.


Get off the Powder! Snort is not brain juice!
Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top
What do you think America would do is another country sent fighter aircraft over the US? We were NEVER in any danger from Iraq even if that had had the WMD.


Translation: "This is my last land Grab! Just the Sudentanland! Nothng more! Sieg Heil!"

Nice try col Klink.
Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top
#75 by bigrickstallion
Saturday, October 29, 2005


Guess Dabe is back! Hi Dabe! Comment on my articles!
Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top
#79 by Lee1776
Saturday, October 29, 2005


Lee, do you really want to joust with ghosts? Col Klink is not even real! Just an apparition of Dean/Kerry/Sheehan.
Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top
I say again, Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. He was not a threat. He had no military capable of causing America ANY harm. I am not advocating us to attack Iran. I am pointing out that Iran was a much greater threat then Iraq. Why did Bush attack the lesser threat if he was bound to attack a radical Moslem country. Why did he not attack Iran? There is no way to defend the Bush attack of Iraq. There is no defending the way he conducted the war with far less manpower then was needed to do the job. He was told by the military generals that knew what was required and he ignored their advise. Now we are in a mess that is killing our military almost every day. It is just like his faher warned but Gerore W. would not listen.
Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why did Bush attack the lesser threat if he was bound to attack a radical Moslem country


Two reasons i can think of:

1. The whole point was to attack a weakened state. The idea was to win and win quickly in order to demonstrate American military might.
2. It serves American interests to attack Iraq. They need a regional military base from which to project force over the coming decades as they continue on their way to establishing Global Hegemony. Iraq with its abundance of oil is essentially a regional sweetspot.

There is no defending the way he conducted the war with far less manpower then was needed to do the job.


This is just typical American arrogance combined with old school Cold War thinking. Who in their right mind would attack America head-on? Its an invitation to slaughter. Ameircans thought because they had all the tanks and guns and superior airpower that they were sweet. Iraqi Freedom fighters appear to have a different opinion. Guerilla warfare is what works against conventional forces of superior might. Its very effective tactically, strategically and psychologically as evidenced by the decreased levels of support for the Plonker called President.

America may have captured Baghdad in a couple of days but they still haven't still haven't won the war. All America has done is exacerbate the terrorist problem making it more likely that terrorist activities will occur and much easier for way-ward Islamic clerics to radicalise halfwit religous fanatics.

It does however serve the purpose of acting as a catalyst for the reduction of individual rights in the so called democratic states and also greases the legislative wheels in order to push through large defence contracts all in the name of "fighting evil doers".

From a moral perspective this invasion has been a complete disaster but in terms of population controls and wealth transfer its been a remarkable success..... just ask Exxon Mobile.
Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top
bigrickstallion

I agree our actions in Iraq have made the terrorist problem worse in two ways. First, we have enabled the radical elements to use our invasion of a Moslem country to get more followers that will give up their lives to kill Americans. Second, we have provided Iraq as a place were terrosists can operate. The CIA has said as much. Thus, our attacking Iraq has NOT made America safer as Bush claims. That makes the over 2000 deaths and the thousands of injuries as well as almost $300 billion errors of the first order.
Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top
Iraqi Freedom fighters appear to have a different opinion. Guerilla warfare is what works against conventional forces of superior might.



And here is where you lose me....unless by "Freedom Fighters" you mean: those who fight against Freedom
Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top
ii. The right to regime change automatically superimposes one set of beliefs, values and principles on another. Some call that hubris.

I'd accept this if we had occupied Iraq the way the British occupied India, but you know perfectly well it ain't going down that way. Allowing the Iraqis to define and establish their own government, absent the lethal repression of the worse-than-Gestapo goons of a ruthless tyrant, hardly qualifies as hubris. You should retake History 101.
iii. The notion of using war to promote stability is a misnomer, I have yet to find a confirmed newsource outside a DoD report that speaks of improvements outside the "green" zone.

Then you haven't been bothering to read anything not delivered to your door at 5am.
Beyond that, if the Plame investigation draws more blood than say Scooter Libby's and delves into Cheney's this will deal a devastating blow to the nation's credibility.. Impeachment or worse could follow and that would substantially desecrate the nobleness of this war in ways name-shouting could never accomplish.

A liberal's wet dream, but wishful thinking. We know what Fitzgerald accuses Libby of (and we also now know Fitzgerald's political leanings, don't we?) but we don't know whether he is guilty of anything yet. As far as the press is concerned, we can just go straight to sentencing & dispense with a trial - what a waste of resources, right?
This war was predicated on a LIE that Bush and Cheney pushed on the American people.

Bush and Cheney... and Clinton and Kerry and McCain and Dashel and Gore and Edwards and Blair and...

Apparently Gene doesn't mind lying - he lies about lying all the time so I can't imagine why he'd be so upset.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no question from the investigation outing the fact Mrs Wilson worked for the CIA is the resilt of both Rove and Libby talking to the press. That has caused all the CIA agents that operated for the same cover company as Mrs wilson to be compermised. Mr. Fitzgerald said at his news conference this was a serious issue. The fact that no one was charged under the law intented to protect CIA agents from becomming public knowledge is a factor of the complexity of that law . It is NOT because Rove and Lobby did not identify Mrs Wilson as a CIA agent. They did that and as such are rssponsible for putting that CIA cover operation OUT OF BUSINESS. WHY was Rove or Libby talking to the press about ANY CIA personnel? Answer- to punish Amb. Wilson for his Op Ed that did not support the Bush policy!

Another fact that has come out is that it was not Mrs Wilson that said send my husband but it was her superiors who were talking about sending Amb. Wilsion and then asked Mrs Wilson about the experience of Amb. Wilson. Bottom line- The caution that Amb. Wilson stated in his Op ED about Iraq having WMD has turned out to be the truth about WMD in Iraq! Bush and Cheney were wrong not Wilson about WMD in Iraq.
Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top
we also now know Fitzgerald's political leanings, don't we?)


we do?
Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: COL Gene

Does someone here that gnat buzzing? I thought I heard a peep.  My mistake.

Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top

we also now know Fitzgerald's political leanings, don't we?)


we do?

Yea, I think he is in the Life party!

Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top



Saddam was not linked to attacking the US. That is pure BS


Nope! NOT BS! You shoot at our planes (belonging to the "UNITED STATES" and containing US pilots) then you ARE attacking us!
Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no question from the investigation outing the fact Mrs Wilson worked for the CIA is the resilt of both Rove and Libby talking to the press. That has caused all the CIA agents that operated for the same cover company as Mrs wilson to be compermised. Mr. Fitzgerald said at his news conference this was a serious issue. The fact that no one was charged under the law intented to protect CIA agents from becomming public knowledge is a factor of the complexity of that law . It is NOT because Rove and Lobby did not identify Mrs Wilson as a CIA agent. They did that and as such are rssponsible for putting that CIA cover operation OUT OF BUSINESS. WHY was Rove or Libby talking to the press about ANY CIA personnel? Answer- to punish Amb. Wilson for his Op Ed that did not support the Bush policy!


That's a nice bit of fiction, Gene. If any of it were true, Fitzgerald would have indicted someone. No excuses about the law being "too complex" - that's bullshit.

Another fact that has come out is that it was not Mrs Wilson that said send my husband but it was her superiors who were talking about sending Amb. Wilsion and then asked Mrs Wilson about the experience of Amb. Wilson. Bottom line- The caution that Amb. Wilson stated in his Op ED about Iraq having WMD has turned out to be the truth about WMD in Iraq! Bush and Cheney were wrong not Wilson about WMD in Iraq.


Another pathetic attempt at revising history, Gene, and completely bogus. Wilson's report had nothing to do with WMD "in" Iraq and was considered by the Committee which investigated his trip to actually support the suspicion that Iraq had sought to acquire yellowcake. You know this, yet you continue to manufacture & spew this crap.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top
kb -

Replay that news conference tape and tell me you don't know.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

If any country were to fly combat aircraft over the US what do you think we would do?

Saddam did not attack the US. He did not have the means to attack the US. He was not a threat even if he would have had WMD. Iran is far closer to having a WMD and has a much better military. They are more likely to attack Israel and start a mojor war. Bush screwed up by attacking Iraq and anyone that looks at the facts knows it. Now we are stuck just like Bush was warned by no less then his father.
Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top
WHY was Rove or Libby talking to the press about ANY CIA personnel? Answer- to punish Amb. Wilson for his Op Ed that did not support the Bush policy!


I'll ask again, for probably the 20th time, exactly how would divulging her identity undermine Wilson or his report? This purported motive has been accepted by nutjobs like you and the MSM as fact without any evidence to support it. The motive is an assumption on the part of administration opponents, especially the MSM, spewed to make Libby & Rove look venal, and nothing more. And you have no business answering your hypothetical question anyway - you have no evidence whatsoever to support that answer.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #100 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa

The Op Ed that Wilson wrote that got Cheney and Bush upset questioned the Bush argument to go to war. Guess what Wilson was correct to question that war. Powell has now stated his UN address about Saddam having WMD was the result of a SNOW JOB and a BIG mistake.