Consider:

I don't have an opinion on you one way or the other. I don't care what you said on another forum. I can't view the video that started all this because I haven't got enough memory on my puter. I don't care whether you support the war or not. I'm sorry that SOME here think that being against the war is unamerican. It's a shame when we as Americans treat each other hatefully JUST for being conservative or liberal.

But, you should get your facts straight before starting an argument over something like Fallujah.

Unlike Yoopr, I wasn't there, but my understanding is that MOST of the 400,000 residents (if there WERE that many) had long since gotten OUT of there before the offensive. We even warned them to do just THAT. Those who stayed were considered to be combatants or supporters of them.

There were NOT 300,000 killed in Fallujah! From your OWN posts, brought over from pbs, I guess:


"... no attempt has been made yet to clear and search the rubble and debris, beneath which hundreds of bodies may be buried..."

Hundreds is way less than hundreds of thousands!


"A town of wide streets and squat, sand-colored buildings, its population is primarily farmers."

No way 400,000 FARMERS are going to be co-located in a TOWN setting.


"According to some reports, of the estimated 750 civilian deaths, 90 per cent were non-combatants."

But, if they stayed.... they were in collusion.


"the up to 100,000 victims since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, according to the British medical paper The Lancet; and at least 6,000 victims, and counting, in Fallujah, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent."

Even the Muslim 'red cross' does not claim hundreds of thousands of deaths!


"In Guernica - as in Fallujah - there was no distinction between civilians and guerrillas: the order was to "kill them all".


Again.... we gave them a chance to get OUT if they were friendly. Any and ALL who remained (except maybe doctors) were there to resist us! We were right to anhialate them all.

YOU don't know the whole story. So, why are you doggedly taking this anti-American, anti-Troop stance? Do you believe EVERYTHING you read on a blog or a forum by someone with an opinion?

For the record, I share your concerns about Cheney, Bush and the war in general. I deplore the actions of a VERY FEW of our troops who have made things MUCH harder on ALL of us. But, I don't start arguments about the war based on MIS-information.

What's that old saying? Believe NONE of what you HEAR, and only HALF of what you SEE?

It's okay to have different or even dissenting opinions. But, it is wise to realize that they are ONLY your opinions. You might be wrong, misguided, misled, misinformed, etc.

And to be diplomatic REQUIRES that you give SOME credence and respect to others' opinions and positions as well.

I hate almost everything about Pres. Bush. That's MY right! But, I WILL give him a LITTLE credit. Just recently I've noticed him toning down his rhetoric as it concerns Democrats who oppose the war. Even HE is now claiming that we are NOT unpatriotic or anti-American. We just have a difference of opinion. That is part of what made this country GREAT (at one time.)

I understand HIS viewpoint on the war, and even can agree with SOME of his logic. I just happen to see things differently, and would have done things differently.

Both conservatives AND liberals can be guilty of wearing "blinders." But, I think before starting a volatile discussion such as this, it would be good if you took yours off and contemplated both sides to the story.

And most importantly.... get your facts straight. Your numbers just don't add up.

Hobo

 

Hi Hobo,
I quoted a lot of different things because there was such a range of reporting.

I thought the soccer stadium picture was telling. I believed it was true.

My grandfather was a farmer, and he lived in Chicago. People with big farms have workers. They don't do all the sunup to sunset work themselves.

Here's what I think, I think that if we, the Americans, didn't let people in to report, that we were hiding something.

The population clearly was 350,000 to 400,000. The city was totally destroyed.

Think about New Orleans... not everyone could flee. Poor people don't have the means. So, I'm sure that's true in Iraq, too. So it would be likely that if we said for them to flee and they didn't that we killed those who were too old or too sick or too young to flee. And they weren't enemies, they were just like our people who needed help and couldn't get it after Katrina.

In terms of Bush, I think he's rather cute, as looks go, and I think his speeches are a riot to see on late night talk shows. What I dislike is that he lied about the weopons of mass destruction. And he's hauling out the same old Terrorists, Be afraid of the terrorists! talk now.

I was a Republican like my farmer grandfather right up until the whole BCCI thing, and it wasn't the thing in itself that put me off the Republicans, it was that they lied about it, and that anyone who didn't participate in the lie that it was going to cost around $56million to clean up, or $256 million, got chucked.

It's the lies for profit that put me off.

 

So, to clarify, because you have determined that the president out and out lied you have turned from a Republican to Democrat?

Let's examine that logic shall we?

Nobody has ever proven that Bush lied about WMD, the most conclusive evidence points that he was overly optimistic that they existed and then jumped the gun with the evidence that he did have rather than wait to have even greater unequivocal evidence.

You say that's a lie, some say it's being proactive to avoid the worse possible scenario. Either way, to say it is a lie is just an opinion and one more than likely based on emotion rather than facts, just as Bush wanted to be right about WMD.

Now let's look at your logic. If changing political parties because a president lied is in vogue, then why didn't every Democrat change over to Republican when the hero of the left stood before the masses on national tv and stated, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."?

 

Hi Scoe,
I'm sorry, I don't write as clearly as I want to.

I switched from Republican to Democrat as a result of the lies connected with the BCCI scandal, Bush I (One).

Clinton's fidelity (lack of) is deplorable. Perhaps the proper verb is "was".

But here's the thing, whatever Clinton did with a cigar, he hurt Hillary and his daughter, he didn't kill a hundred thousand people, and more.

No, I have to disagree with you about the WMD...
I don't think "overly optimistic" is an appropriate attitude toward the possible existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I think we would have been much better off as a nation had there been a little optimism that there were not WMD.

I think that it's been clearly shown that Niger wasn't doing anything with enriched uranium or anything to do with it.

To say, and have the Secretary of State say, that we had intelligence showing that there were WMD or clear indications of them, was false. False. Not true. A lie.

In terms of the profit from the war... Remember Rett in Gone with the Wind, he had his money from war profiteering.

In terms of the profit... I don't think that the drive for profit is as despicable as sending soldiers off to fight so that Halliburton can rebuild... and profits be reaped.

 

But here's the thing, whatever Clinton did with a cigar, he hurt Hillary and his daughter, he didn't kill a hundred thousand people, and more.

No? Clinton deployed the military and attacked other nations. Your analogy doesn't hold water

1993-Present -- Bosnia/Yugoslavia/Kosovo.

1993 -- Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.

1993-95 -- Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy US ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.

1994-96 -- Rwanda.

1994 -- Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.

1995 -- Bosnia. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs. (See Operation Deliberate Force)

1996 -- Liberia. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered US military forces to evacuate from that country "private US citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the US Embassy compound...."

1996 -- Central African Republic. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of US military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private US citizens and certain U.S. Government employees," and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui."

1997 -- Albania. On March 13, 1997, US military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. Government employees and private US citizens from Tirana, Albania.

1997 -- Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of US military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.

1997 -- Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, US military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain US government employees and private US citizens.

1997 -- Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 US military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations.

1998 -- Iraq. US-led bombing campaign against Iraq. (See Operation Desert Fox)

1998 -- Guinea-Bissau. On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the US Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of US military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.

1998 - 1999 Kenya and Tanzania. US military personnel was deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

1998 -- Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach On August 20th, air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.

1998 -- Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the US Embassy in Monrovia.

1999 - 2001 East Timor. Limited number of US military forces deployed to restore peace to East Timor.

1999 -- NATO's bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict. (See Operation Allied Force)

No, I have to disagree with you about the WMD...
I don't think "overly optimistic" is an appropriate attitude toward the possible existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I think we would have been much better off as a nation had there been a little optimism that there were not WMD.

There wasn't a single source that said there were no WMD's. EVERY intel source in the world at the time stated that they exist(ed). Iraq continued to threaten the area (Israel and US interests specifically) with these weapons that do not exist. This is beside the obvious fact that there was a CONDITIONAL cease fire declared and agreed to by the waring parties.

I think that it's been clearly shown that Niger wasn't doing anything with enriched uranium or anything to do with it.

Bush said then, ?The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .? Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush?s 16 words ?well founded.?
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from ?a number of intelligence reports,? a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush?s 16 words a ?lie?, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

To say, and have the Secretary of State say, that we had intelligence showing that there were WMD or clear indications of them, was false. False. Not true. A lie.

There still are signs that there were WMD in Iraq, one of the main point is that even the declared weapons that Iraq reported to the UN after the war are no longer there? Where did they go?

In terms of the profit from the war... Remember Rett in Gone with the Wind, he has his money from war profiteering.

In terms of the profit... I don't think that the drive for profit is as despicable as sending soldiers off to fight so that Halliburton can rebuild... and profits be reaped.

Just another over simplistic, idealistic and partisan view of a complex issue.

 

I might quip just as you did, Just another over simplistic, idealistic and partisan view of a complex issue.

 

Fozzy: Thanks for the detailed list showing Clinton was NOT afraid, or too weak, to use force when necessary and to commit troops or weapons where needed.

But, SURELY you can't mean to compare all those "evacuation" missions and "peacekeeping" missions against the aggressor Serbs, (ALL within the framework and oversight of the U.N. and Nato) with an invasion of Iraq for the main purpose of Regime Change!

As for the intel on WMD, you're all wrong. A documentary interviewing the Deputy Chief of the CIA, confirmed that Tennet went to Bush and said, we can NOT confirm the presence of WMD's, and Bush sent him "to his room" until he could come out and tell the Prez what HE WANTED TO HEAR. (and yes, I've seen your little letter about the presence of Sarin gas. I guess it wasn't all that convincing or important, or Bush would have made it public.)

I don't have as much of a problem with those who declare openly that they felt the war was necessary on humanitarian grounds, as I do with those who continue to defend the LIES that Bush has given out, and changed, and morphed, for so long.

You, yourself, rail against the religious motives behind the imperialist actions of the Crusades. Can't you see this is just a NON religious Crusade (Bush even used the word!) to establish an American military presence in the area?

I don't even have as much of a problem with taking a proactive stance and committing American troops to ATTACKING a sovereign country (for the first time in our history,) if we had been told the TRUTH about it, and given a chance to have our vote on the issue/referendum counted. My biggest problem is with Bush's total INCOMPETENCE and arrogance.... declaring "Mission Accomplished" when he had NO IDEA what can of worms he had opened. Men like this can and will lead to the downfall of this great country.

And I would feel the SAME about him EVEN if he were a Democrat! I want him OUT because he's incompetent, arrogant, secretly undercutting our constitutional protections, and openly admitting that he takes his "orders" from GOD!! Yes, the same one YOU take exception to!

I am convinced that he sees himself as being hand-picked by GOD to lead the armies of Heaven in the final battle of Armageddon! He couldn't wait and HOPE it would come during his tenure.... so he started it! Yet... he's so incompetent, he refuses to deal with the truth, which is that he MUST reinstitute the DRAFT if he is to have enough forces on hand to fight this Religious war all around the planet.

No, I haven't forgotten 9/11. But, I strongly believe that had we employed our intelligence forces, and those of other friendly countries, we could more easily have tracked Bin Laden down, snuck up on him with our crack Ranger teams, or others, and either killed him or captured him and brought him to justice!

Instead, we TOLD him we were coming.... gave him MONTHS to hide and then inflamed the Muslim world by invading their holy lands... driving MORE and more to his side.

Then, of course.... we abandoned the search for him in favor of Bush's war of revenge over the "perceived" failure of his father. One that the Downing Street Memo proves was in the planning stages pretty much all along.

If you believe that this Holy War was inevitable, then you must realize that it started in 1979 with Khomeini in Iran. How many Republican presidents have we had since then? Don't talk to me about Democrats/Clinton being weak on terrorism.

9/11 was a CRIME committed against us on OUR soil. We had AMPLE resources to track UBL down and bring him to justice for his crime. This war has only muddied the waters, driven him into hiding, bolstered his defense forces, and cost thousands of American military casualties.

If you want to support the war, fine. But, let's be HONEST about the motives behind it.

 

Well put.
Well put, indeed.

The only place I differ with you is on the question of Bush and religion.

I myself can not be sure how religious he actually is, since he knew and his advisers knew that the Christians in this country could be got to vote as a block.

Knowing that, they used the information.

The result being the block vote they wanted going to them... and me being unclear when Bush is acting for the benefit of votes and when he is genuine....

 

Bush is a recovering alcoholic and coke user. He was "saved" from his evil ways late in life.

As the son of a minister, I have witnessed this late in life conversion many times. Almost ALWAYS these people become fanatical about their newfound life and religion.

Remember the "Jesus Freaks" of the 70's???

Bush admitted before the whole nation that he was "directed" by a Higher Power in his quest to bring freedom and democracy to those who never asked for it!

I'm not saying he wants to convert the Muslims. Just that he believes God has picked him to end this battle between good and evil once and for all!

 

This is a very interesting thread, I just read all 10 page's. WOW!
I don't understand Liberal's ,there agenga is mind boggaling,It's there
only purpose in life is to hate Bush.
What get's me is they hate him mostly for a suposed lie.





Let me give you a update Bush didn't lie about WMD, they know for a fact
they where there, becuase it was the US that sold them to Iraq in first place back when Iran and Iraq was at war, to gain confidence in the region. At that time it was a way for the us start a foot hold in the region,
one favor deseves another sort of thing. Things went south, Sahdam took over and used them on his own people.
We would have got them back if not for the Communist News Network(CNN) and the rest of the Liberal controlled media giving Sahdam a 3 month countdown on the start date of the war. All the WMD some how made it's way to Sireia, and who know's where. I'll give you hint, How do think Iran may have come across some weapons grade plutonium, and be able to to now have,or real close to having a Nuke!!
It's just a coincedence that it is only a couple of years after the war started.
Why would Bush say they were there knowing his "LIe" would be uncovered, making himself the fool. Somehow I don't believe you can become a President of the United States being a idoit. Bush is no Idiot
he may not make popular disions but the man is not a idiot.
The problem I see is that too many people believe the new's media and not the truth. You have to search for truth,not just believe what you hear.