Bush a Nazi?

[dpuckett]

Rebel Horseman,

Nothing personal per se, but the South lost the Civil War, get over it. You still have the right to do whatever you want in way of a career, whom you marry, where you live, what and how much you own, etc. How exactly have you been repressed for 150 years? If you dont like America, you are free to cross the border to Mexico. See how you like that opression.



CF, illflem, et al-



I would much rather take the war to them. Why must we wait till they attack us? Preemptive war is like taking care of a playground bully- you see them beating up on others, they threaten you; you clean their clock(s). Why are lilberals so pacifistic? Yes, people are going to die, but we still have 3000+ lives lost for no reason, or have you forgotten?



What did you think of all the WMD talk when your idol, Billy Jeff, was in office, selling our military secrets to China, who then probably forwarded it to the Mid eastern terrorists? The reason we did nothing about it then, is first, Billy Jeff is a eunich, and second, he was too busy kissing the UN's butt, hoping for approval and praise, recognition of his power.



Bush said in the VERY BEGINNING that it would be a long, drawn out, costly process. But what would the alternative cost? The reason we are hated so is our freedom, nothing more. They are JEALOUS. And instead of trying to look to us as a model of how they should live, they try to tear us down, because they are cowards, drunk on the idea of power (much like the liberals) and the controls they'll have over the masses.



Daniel

PS- I have many times considered joining up and going to kill me a couple ***********, but the (liberal) Stoddard County, MO prosecutor wont drop his caseless felony charges against me; so I'm stuck in the Devil's Outhouse until we go to trial, which has been delayed 6 TIMES since April. But I wont go off anymore on that tangent.

 

[Champane Flight]

If

If we could go kick the people responsible for 9/11 rears, I would say go for it, nuke em, forget em. But (I don't know how many times I have to say this) we are not, have not, and will not on the present path. On the present path we are just making new enemy's. Kicking a bully's rear is one thing, killing/maiming thousands of civilians in the name of freedom is another all together. We are the ones playing the neighborhood bully, we had them surrounded, had sanctions against them, flew their airspace daily. Big threat?



Pacifist? No, I just refuse to be a bully.



I am not saying that Saddam didn't need to taken out, but not by just us, by the world. Thats right, the useless UN. Why was Bush in such a hurry? Because they were a threat? Where was it? Where is it? Because of a UN resolution? Israel has over a dozen broken resolutions, I see no action being taken against them. You cannot go into the UN with an idea of taking a sovereign country and expect them to act upon it within six months. It takes longer than that to order coffee in congress (probably a good thing) . How can you expect the UN with 100s of country's and entities to act on this timeframe? Bush was just going through the actions, he was going in anyway, it didn't matter if God himself came down and told him not to (who he claims to know, yet his actions say different)!



And again we bring up how Clinton sold secrets. Proof is not there. Just the same old allegations. Just as I cannot prove that Bushy got bailed out by his rich Papa after using Coke in college. Or that he lied outright to the American people so he could make a name for himself in his right wing circles by invading Iraq. But all the signs point to this.



The reason for the attack on 9/11 is one that America does not want to hear, so we plug our ears and send troops overseas to die for our deafness! Our foreign policy is why 9/11 happened, the same one which supports/arms Israel, the same one that one day supports a country and the next turns on it, the same one that favors oil exporters and ignores nations with none.



Jealousy? Nah, I think not. Religion? Yes, some of it rides on the shoulders of Islamic idiots (we have our own idiots in this country). We have a awful large force over there, I see very few of our resources going after these people. The hate is still being taught (here too). As long as we and they continue to feed on it, we will be at war, and sooner or later with this frame of mind it will be here! Not just one attack, but many, day after day, the same images that continue to be seen in Iraq, Palestine, and Israel. I really don't think I will like living like this again.

 

[Boomer II]

killing/maiming thousands of civilians



I musta missed this "fact".

 

[Champane Flight]

Covering your eyes too?

Iraqi civilian death tally at 3,240

BAGHDAD (AP) — At least 3,240 civilians died across Iraq during a month of war, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a five-week Associated Press investigation.



The count is still fragmentary, and the complete toll — if it is ever tallied — is sure to be significantly higher.



Several surveys have looked at civilian casualties within Baghdad, but the AP tally is the first attempt to gauge the scale of such deaths from one end of the country to the other, from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south.



The AP count was based on records from 60 of Iraq's 124 hospitals — including almost all of the large ones — and covers the period between March 20, when the war began, and April 20, when fighting was dying down and coalition forces announced they would soon declare major combat over. AP journalists traveled to all of these hospitals, studying their logs, examining death certificates where available and interviewing officials about what they witnessed.



Many of the other 64 hospitals are in small towns and were not visited because they are in dangerous or inaccessible areas. Some hospitals that were visited had incomplete or war-damaged casualty records.



Even if hospital records were complete, they would not tell the full story. Many of the dead were never taken to hospitals, either buried quickly by their families in accordance with Islamic custom, or lost under rubble.



The AP excluded all counts done by hospitals whose written records did not distinguish between civilian and military dead, which means hundreds, possibly thousands, of victims in Iraq's largest cities and most intense battles aren't reflected in the total.



During the first weeks of the war, the Iraqi government made its own attempt to keep track of civilian deaths, but that effort fell apart as U. S. troops neared Baghdad and the government began to topple.



Lt. Col. Jim Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday that the U. S. military did not count civilian casualties. "Our efforts focus on destroying the enemy's capabilities, so we never target civilians and have no reason to try to count such unintended deaths," he said.



Cassella also said an accurate count of civilian casualties among the population of 24 million would be impossible, in part because Iraqi paramilitaries fought wearing civilian clothes and because of "the regime's use of civilian shields, and unaimed antiaircraft fire falling back to earth. "



The British Defense Ministry says it didn't count casualties either.



In the 1991 Gulf War an estimated 2,278 civilians were killed, according to Iraqi civil defense authorities. No U. S. or independent count is known to have been made. That war consisted of seven weeks of bombing and 100 hours of ground war, and did not take U. S. forces into any Iraqi cities.



This time it was very different. In a war in which the Iraqi soldiery melted away into crowded cities, changed into plainclothes or wore no uniform to begin with, separating civilian and military casualties is often impossible.



Witnesses say Saddam Hussein's fighters attacked from ambulances and taxis and donned women's chadors or Bedouin robes, creating an atmosphere in which U. S. troops couldn't be sure who their enemy was.



Adding to the civilian toll was the regime's tactic of parking its troops and weapons in residential neighborhoods, creating targets for U. S. bombs that increased the casualties among noncombatants.



And while the great majority of civilian deaths appear to have been caused by American U. S. and British attacks, witnesses say some — even a rough estimate is impossible — were caused by the Iraqis themselves: by exploding Iraqi ammunition stored in residential neighborhoods, by falling Iraqi anti-aircraft rounds aimed at U. S. warplanes, or by Iraqi fire directed at American troops.



The United States said its sophisticated weaponry minimized the toll, and around the country are sites that, to look at them, bolster the claim: missiles that tore deep into government buildings but left the surrounding houses untouched.



"Did the Americans bomb civilians? Yes. But one should be realistic," said Dr. Hameed Hussein al-Aaraji, the new director of Baghdad's al-Kindi Hospital. "Saddam ran a dirty war. He put weapons inside schools, inside mosques. What could they do?"



Among the documents studied by AP journalists was the register at Kadhamiya General Hospital in Baghdad. Someone has taped up the shredded binding, as if that could fix the horrors inside. There are pages bathed in dried, reddish-brown blood, their letters smeared and unintelligible.



It and other registers at hospitals across the country record the names, ages and addresses of patients, the diagnoses and operations, the recoveries, and the deaths. They also list professions: for example, butcher, carpenter, soldier, student, or policeman. The AP investigation had to depend on the accuracy of the hospitals in distinguishing between soldier and civilians as there was no way to verify the records.



Some of the best record-keeping was in Baghdad, where AP journalists visited all 24 hospitals that took in war casualties. Their logs provided a count of 1,896 civilians killed. There were certainly more civilians dead; a few hospitals lost count as fighting intensified.



In some parts of the country, records are more spotty. The three civilian hospitals in Basra, Iraq's second largest city, recorded the deaths of 413 people. But while doctors estimate 85% were civilian, they have no evidence, so AP didn't include numbers from Basra in its count.



Some hospitals that began the war keeping records had to stop. The fighting came to them — in some cases, inside their front doors.



Doctors at Nasiriyah's Republic Hospital said seven patients were killed in their beds when a shell hit the building April 7. At Baghdad's Yarmouk Hospital, doctors fled when U. S. tanks shelled a hospital building seized by Iraqi fighters. When they returned five days later, 26 patients were dead.



It will take months or more before anything like a final count emerges. One survey is being done by the advocacy group Human Rights Watch, another by the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, which hopes to win U. S. compensation for victims or their relatives.



Meanwhile, from city to city, block to block, house to house, Iraqis are trying to come to terms with their losses. For many, the personal tragedy is more important than whether the casualty count is 3,000, or double that, or more.



There is little agreement about whether being freed from Saddam's tyranny was worth the cost in lives.



"If they didn't want to kill civilians, why did they fire into civilian areas?" asked Ayad Jassim Ibrahim, a 32-year-old Basra fireman who said his brother Alaa was killed by shrapnel from a U. S. missile that tore into his living room.



Al-Aaraji, at al-Kindi hospital in Baghdad, saw things differently.



"It was a war," he said. "This is the price of liberty

 

[Elite1]

CF, 3,000 some deaths caused by the war. Wonder how they determine if they were civilians since Saddams army has gone underground and isn't in uniform. Did it mention how many of those 3,000 were killed by Americans and how many by Iraqis?

Then when you realize all of the mass murdering under Saddams regim 3,000 doesn't seem so bad. They found another mass of bodies killed execution style... about 15,000. http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0513/iraq.html

 

[Champane Flight]

Some claim

Some claim that the dates to these mass graves were actually dated from the time of the desert storm and casualitys of that war and Iran/Iraq war. When are they going to dig up some WMDs? It is just a little far fetched to see a grave with 15000 executed people in it. Even American officials cannot confirm this grave.



War will have civilian causualitys, this is a given. But to think that there is none and the US is without some responsibility in the deaths of civilians in this war is covering your eyes. America is reminding me more and more of the three monkeys. Hear no evil, see no evil, and do no evil. As long as you don't hear or see it, it aint happening.

 

[Elite1]

CF, sounds to me like your the one covering your eyes and ears... this is from the article posted, "Experts said the grave appeared to be recent and is not a leftover from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. "



Now take your blinders off... Iraq, the mideast, and the entire world is alot better off with Saddams regim gone! Your afraid to admit that Bush had the balls to do the right thing! War is a nasty business and is not for the weak (pantywastes) they like to stand on the sidelines (like monday morning QB's)and point out all the things going wrong.

 

[Elite1]

Originally posted by loncray

Ah, but all those liberals you pillory didn't launch a preemptive war based on that (shaky) information. Bush did. Had Bush let the UN inspectors do their job and they found something, maybe then he'd have justification to launch the first preemptive war America's ever had. But he didn't, he went ahead and attacked. Now, maybe there are WMD's there - I think Bush certainly believes there are. I don't think he lied to us, not in his own mind at least, so this idea about others telling the truth and Bush alone lying is conservative nonsense. But he used shaky information as an excuse to do the single most dangerous thing the leader of any country (much less the leader of the most powerful nation that ever walked the earth) can do - launch a war against a sovereign nation.

Now, if it turns out that he DID know there were no WMD's there, then we get back to the original subject of this thread - because Hitler used a spurious attack by Poles at a German radio station to launch the invasion of Poland at the start of WWII.

Meantime, we now have a nasty guerilla war going on in Iraq, with a pretty good chance of seeing Iraqi action in our own nation. They might not have had anything to do with 9/11, but I'll bet they learned some pretty deadly lessons from it.

Lon, look at the quote from John Kerry (the last one on the page you referenced) Now how do you disarm a regim like Saddams without going to war? Maybe Gore said it best, when he said we know the Iraqis have weapons hidden all over their country.

 

[dpuckett]

Well said, Elite1. Oh, I believe the correct spellilng is pantywaists.



Daniel

 

[Elite1]

Originally posted by dpuckett

Well said, Elite1. Oh, I believe the correct spellilng is pantywaists.



Daniel

Thx, Daniel... but I believe I spelled it correctly...

waist=that part of your body your belt goes around

waste= material you flush down the toilet



pantywaste=one who either goes no. 1 or no. 2 in her (his) panties, usually because they are so scared.



;-)

 

[Champane Flight]

Only ones I see

Only pantywaists I see on this site are the one with excuses for not joining.

 

[loncray]

Nope, I firmly believe that if there were WMD's in Iraq, we'd've seen them used by now. I like the theory that Saddam's weapons designers were lying to him, and Saddam really did think he had WMD programs working. That way, I can still believe that the President genuinely believed there were WMD's, and didn't actually lie to the American people and the rest of the world. Because if he lied to us all in an attempt to launch his preemptive war, that makes Monica's dress very small potatoes indeed. If the Iraqi's had WMD's, they'd be using them against us. Kinda like the SAM's they keep shooting at our helicopters. The foreign terrorists that flooded into Iraq after Saddam's fall would be using them. Those same foreign terrorists that were mostly absent from Iraq previously, since Saddam saw them as a threat to his own regime.

Somebody show me how Saddam being gone and replaced with chaos is better for Iraq or anything else? The Kurds and those politically opposed to Saddam are immeasureably better off, at least those that aren't being assassinated for working with the US. There's foreign terrorists all over the place, and al Quaeda is blowing stuff up in Turkey now. American troops are dying all over the place, and basic services haven't been restored. So what's better for Iraq? Don't get me wrong, Saddam was a psychopathic butcher and a dictator of the worst kind. But he did keep an orderly country, and he delivered basic services. Neither of these is true of Iraq today.

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by loncray

American troops are dying all over the place, and basic services haven't been restored. So what's better for Iraq? Don't get me wrong, . But he did keep an orderly country, and he delivered basic services. Neither of these is true of Iraq today.

100% wrong there. Saddam had the schools filled with guns, for cryin out loud.

They have more electric in the country today than ever before.



This is not just a battle against a few terrorists-this is a fight for the free world-the enemy knows this. Their way if life(death?) is coming to an end, it hinges on Iraq.



This is a must win.

I just hope Bush does not cave into the pressure, and not finish it.

 

[loncray]

Not wrong - they might be making electricity, but they ain't getting it to the people. As far as filling the schools with guns, what are you talking about? Did you mean the human shield thing from the Gulf War? They were educating kids - granted, it certainly wasn't the sort of education we'd want kids to have, but they had functional schools.

As far as finishing it - what will be the end? It certainly wasn't the 'end of combat operations' or whatever Bush called it. By being in Iraq, we're basically making more terrorists all the time. When we weren't in Iraq, the best recruiting slogan the Muslim extremists had was 'get the Israelis our of Palestine'. Now they have a whole new reason to fight, a new reason to hate us, and the resources to educate more and more young Arabs in the fine arts of shooting down helicopters and blowing up car bombs. So what will be the end? We can't kill every potential terrorist without killing every living Arab - and there's no way the War on Terrorism will justify genocide. So what's the end of the war?

 

[GeneA]

The end of the war? Read Armaggeddon in the Bible. At least that is the way the Christian Right sees it.

 

[Elite1]

Lon, "Because if he lied to us all in an attempt to launch his preemptive war, that makes Monica's dress very small potatoes indeed. If the Iraqi's had WMD's, they'd be using them against us. "



You don't get it, do you refuse to read what Clinton, Kerry, Madeline Albright and other top Dem. leaders have said? They all thought that Saddam was in possesion of these weapons, before Bush was even President. So how can you insinuate that Bush might have lied to us? Gore was also quoted that the weapons were probably hidden... . is he part of the conspiracy also?

 

[loncray]

Elite, read my posts again, you aren't getting what I said. I don't think Bush (or the other folks mentioned) lied to us, at least I hope not. I think Bush sincerely believed there were WMD's there, and the theory that I like best has Saddam believing the same thing - as he was being lied to by his own scientists. This isn't a matter of being a conspiracy - unless Bush knew it wasn't true - it's a matter of our intelligence community being fooled. HOWEVER, true or not, it was puffed up in order to justify a preemptive war on a sovereign nation. Just like Hitler used the 'attack on the radio station' and Tojo used the threat posed by the US Navy in WWII. Had Saddam attacked us or our allies, or if there was proof that he was linked to al Quaeda, I'd consider those to be good justifications to attack. Instead we get poor intelligence that's been puffed up until it can't possibly be false, and we use it to attack another nation, something we've never done preemptively in our history.

Whenever the moderates question Bush on WMD's, the conservatives trot out the list of non-conservatives that believe there were WMD's without addressing the issue of the preemptive attack.

 

[Boomer II]

Read em and weep.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R=798B2A686

 

[loncray]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46460-2003Nov15.html





No weeping here - the best part of the Internet is that anybody can find materials to support ANY position in an argument. This I found on the quickest Google search - I can dig deeper if you so desire. If there was so much proof of connections between al Qaeda and Iraq, why on earth did Bush even need to bring WMD's into the equation? Even if Osama bin Laden was sleeping with Saddam's daughter the very day we attacked Iraq, bringing up WMD's - the very existence of which is still unclear - just muddies the waters and causes doubts for the Bush Administrations veracity in telling us why we needed to attack Iraq. So why're they even mentioned?



And neither article addresses the question of attacking another nation preemptively like the Nazis or Japanese did.

 

[Elite1]

Originally posted by Boomer II

Read em and weep.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R=798B2A686

Boomer I heard about this link on the radio this morning. Funny how the Libs don't want to believe it. They want the United States to be the bad guy in this... they don't want there to be a link, they don't want WMD to be found. they will close their eyes to this and insert fingers in their ears. They just don't want to believe it.