WHO lied about what???

[illflem]

DLeach, sure Saddam's treatment of his people was brutal so why didn't the administration use those facts to go to war instead of lying about WMDs and nukes?



If you want to believe what Amnesty International has to say about Iraq don't ignore this one - http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3142228



"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis detained by U. S. troops accused their captors of torture and degrading treatment, rights group Amnesty International reported on Wednesday, calling on the occupying forces to bring human rights violators to justice.



Detainees also said U. S. troops had shot some captives, the London-based rights watchdog reported, in a study based on interviews with former prisoners of U. S. forces across Iraq. "

 

[Champane Flight]

Threat?

Everyone here can agree Saddam's regime was evil. No argument. Was that the reason given for invading Iraq? NO. The reason put forth for invading Iraq was that they had WMD and were a threat to America! There is another country whose leaders make Saddam look like a saint, Korea, why not invade Korea? How about Liberia? They are in a bloody civil war with hundreds dieing everyday (No oil?). How about China? Thousands of people killed by an evil regime.



These are facts are they not? Do you want to sacrifice your sons and daughters for generations for a crusade against evil? It will always be out there, when one is destroyed, another will pop up. Your idea of a better world?



I was barely eighteen years old, when I was sent out to pick up over fifty body's spread over a two mile area, from a Vietnam airlines plane shot down right after takeoff. It was 100+ out and they had been out there for two days until area could be secured. Is this something that you want your children to experience? How about holding their best friend as he passes? Or maybe coming home crippled? We are not in some glorious liberation here, this is a war, it is not over, nor will it be over soon. All of our children will have a chance to serve in it before it is over! We will see how proud you are of our Presidents decision then. Or of his reasons for it... ... War should always be a last resort, not pre-emptive.



It seems that this is going to be another hard learned lesson by the American people.

 

[jryan11518]

I keep reading that there is no draft, these solders should know the dangers. In my work I encounter some of these young soldiers (boys and girls). Out of curiosity, maybe being nosy I question them. Where are you from? What is your job? How did you get in military? How is it going? Is it very difficult for you? What part do you like or dislike the most?

Most of them are very nice kids, but do not have a clue. On a one to one BS session they are not all ruff and tough, but more honest and open. They are away from home, not long in the military. Where I encounter them they are tired, and at work.

Same old story about the special training. The ones smart enough or lucky enough to go to transitional training schools all without exception say they will get out for more $. These ones have a clue.

Most (that I converse with) do not say they singed up out of patriotic duty, actually only a few refer to that. Most simply say it was the best they could find (they quit a lousy job). No money for training or schooling at home. The other options were not as good as this one. The danger part of the job does not enter their head. That will be someone else not me.



No do not go there, This is not a research grant study, I am not referring to Officers in OCS with degrees in something. This is just time consuming conversation with young solders.



Government sponsored trade school (not universities to many can not qualify) would help a lot of Americans youth. When the young prosper we all prosper. I know, be grumpy, throw cold water on it, you and I will be gone and they will be getting our bill.

 

[DLeach]

Dont have a clue?

Most of them are very nice kids, but do not have a clue. On a one to one BS session they are not all ruff and tough, but more honest and open. They are away from home, not long in the military. Where I encounter them they are tired, and at work.

Last time I checked the purpose if the military was for going to war. What did they think there were doing in basic when they had firearms training? Im sure they werent shooting at beer bottles and old washing machines. I hate it that they are forced into that situation but i dont feel sorry for them because all the sudden they realize that the could be shot at. Suddenly that Montgomery Bill isnt so important after all.

If you want to believe what Amnesty International has to say about Iraq don't ignore this one - http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3142228

Intresting article.



The rights group has said thousands were being held in prisons run by U. S. troops, including Abu Ghraib, one the most feared jails under Saddam, and Camp Cropper near Baghdad airport.



"Detainees continue to report suffering extreme heat while housed in tents, insufficient water, inadequate washing facilities, open trenches for toilets, no change of clothes, even after two months' detention," Amnesty said.



I guess we should feel sorry for them because the 4 seasons and the Baghdad hyatt were all booked. Being detained by a opposing force is never a good thing. Did you ever think some of the people detained may be a danger to other detainees or there guards? I dont see why our troops would just walk around shooting detainees for fun. But i guess you never know.....

These are facts are they not? Do you want to sacrifice your sons and daughters for generations for a crusade against evil? It will always be out there, when one is destroyed, another will pop up. Your idea of a better world?

Hindsight is 20/20 CF. I agree with you on some things. I dont like being lied to anymore than you do. Its going to be a hard thing for Bush and the U. S. as a whole to gain some respect if nothing is found. But i like to look for any silver lining in all bad situations. I hope 5 years from now some Iraqi citizen will cure cancer or aids that maybe he would never have a chance to do before because there were no funding for anything but Saddams palaces, armys,and Udays 1300 mercedes,B MW's, Porches, Ferraris and Rolls royces. Maybe Saddam did take care of all his weapons before we got there. But the fact remains, the wolrd is a better place now that he is out of power. Period.

P. S. Thanks for putting your life on the line to server your country.

No matter how much we may disagree on politics, your more man than many.



Aloha, Dustin

 

[illflem]

Government sponsored trade school (not universities to many can not qualify) would help a lot of Americans youth. When the young prosper we all prosper.

John, the Job Corps fits the bill nicely. The JC center close by me administered by the US Forest Service offers training programs for 400 kids at a time. It specializes in diesel mechanics, painting, landscape and electrician trades. Each center has it's own set of trades offered. Upon completion after two years most all kids have a straight line to a well paying job. Unfortunately Bush wants to cut the JC's funding.



Clinton's support for Bush's war and tactics is very easy to figure out-

Hillary is planning on running for president in 2008, she and Bill are doing everything they can to discredit the Democratic candidates since they don't want a Democrat to win against Bush in 2004 since then Hillary would have essentially no chance of winning the Dem primary in 2008.

So if you don't want to take the chance on getting Hillary in '08 vote Demo in '04.

 

[merryman]

DLeach;



You long post was excellent. The things you laid out were plenty of reason to oust Saddam; but there were/are other compelling reasons.

He was a major player in the terror network; for which there is all kinds of evidence that has been discussed here befor



He did in fact have WMDs--as you pointed out the use of gas on the Kurds, who are in fact Iraqis also



These claims that Bush and his administration lied are Bogus;

Remember that literally dozens of liberals have claimed that Saddam had WMD, one small example. While Secretary of State, for Bill Clinton, M. Allbright said that Saddams possession of WMDs and the threat that they would be given/sold to terror groups to use on the USA was the GRAVEST PROBLEM THIS NATION FACED.

Now I know the far out libs on here want to dismiss this by saying the CIA etc lied to them too. Nonsense! Remember even a very liberal, democratic columnist (one who generally is ver against Bush) dismissed these goofy claims as a "juvenile" effort to get something on Bush. There is simply NO BASIS for these claims except the wishfull thinking of the Bush haters. ,



Vaughn

 

[fest3er]

As I've likely stated in the past, I'm conservative. But Democrats, Republicans, Demicans and Republicrats are pretty much all the same: politicians who will do anything and say anything to be (re)elected.

Saddam needed to be removed. Bush is the only one with the cojones to stand up and say, "We'll do it. ". The stated reasons don't matter. It needed to be done.

Which is harder? Holding your buddy while he dies from combat? or holding your Mom whilst she dies from a viscious heart attack? Death is hard, but it's part of life, and must be accepted. Otherwise, we would have to ban birth, because all births results in death.

The *cause* of death is a different story. Who is the better professional: a leader who sends soldiers into battle for the greater good? or a doctor who fails to detect the signs of heart disease?

For all of you who think President Bush is not affected by each and every combat death, incidental and direct, think again. He may not know their names, but he knows they were there, and they died because of his orders.

I abhor violence, but, by God, some people just need killin'. I'm thankful every day that I've never been pushed to the point of killing, or sent to kill. I doff my hat to every soldier who's done what he's had to do, and am willing to sit down with any soldier and help talk him through the aftermath of his actions, however long it may take.

Soldiers have always been pawns, and will always be pawns. Politicians have always been, for the most part, liars of convenience and, for the most part, will always be such.

When elections roll around, I distrust, even flat-out disbelieve, 99-44/100% of everything politicians say. And most of the inane prattling coming from politicians today is nothing more than election posturing, with very little basis in reality.

My not-so-hunble opinions.

Fest3er

 

[NETim]

Listening to talk radio the other day, Ex-mayor of NY, Ed Koch was being interviewed. He stated that he voted for Dem presidential nominees all his life and had voted for Algore naturally. BUT in '04, he will be voting for BUSH because in his words the greatest threat to the US is terrorism and only Bush will do anything about it.



There's a message there fellas.



Tim

 

[Champane Flight]

Idiot thinking

For some reason people actually think Bush is doing something about terror. All he has done is give the terrorists a bigger target, closer to their home.

 

[Champane Flight]

More

White House 'delayed 9-11 report'

By Shaun Waterman

UPI Homeland and National Security Editor

Published 7/25/2003 8:11 PM

View printer-friendly version





(Editor's note: What follows is a corrected and updated version of a story originally published by UPI on July 23, 2003, under the headline "9/11 report: No Iraq link to al-Qaida. ")





WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.



Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga. , told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.



"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war," said Cleland. "There's no connection, and that's been confirmed by some of bin Laden's terrorist followers ... What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends. "



Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.



"The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out," he said.



"Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration. "



The congressional inquiry, by members of both the House and Senate intelligence committees, was launched in February 2002 amid growing concerns that failures by U. S. intelligence had allowed 19 al-Qaida members to enter the United States, hijack four airliners and kill almost 3,000 people.



Although the committee completed its work at the end of last year, publication of the report has been delayed by what one committee staffer called "vigorous discussion" with administration officials over which parts of it could be declassified.



The 800-page report -- 50 pages of which were censored to protect still-classified information -- was published Thursday.



It is a litany of poor management, bad communication and flawed policy that enabled the 19 hijackers to carry out their deadly plan. Failures by the CIA, the FBI and the super-secret National Security Agency are catalogued.



Many of the censored pages concern the question of support for al-Qaida from foreign countries. Anonymous officials have told news organizations that much of the still-classified material concerns Saudi Arabia, and the question of whether Saudi officials -- perhaps acting as rogue agents -- assisted the 19 men, 15 of whom were Saudis.



Inquiry staff would not comment to UPI about the issue, but one did say that the section contained references to "more one country. "



Prior to the report's publication, a person who had read it told UPI that it showed U. S. intelligence agencies had no evidence linking Iraq to the 9-11 attacks or to al-Qaida. In fact, the issue is not addressed in the declassified sections of the report.



One other person who has seen the classified version of the document told UPI subsequently that the Iraq issue is not addressed in the still-classified section, either. "They didn't ask that question," the person said.