posted on October 29, 2003 07:46:24 AM new
Sounds a bit similar to British sentiments during our Revolutionary War, doesn't it? They just couldn't figure out why we kept fighting back... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on October 29, 2003 08:56:09 AM new
"You're dealing with insane suicide bombers who are killing our people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking them out."
That is true. Not run from these terrorists with our tails between our legs and admit defeat.
I'm glad to hear the recent statements made by our President that he plans to 'stay the course'.
Bombing UN and Red Cross facilities that are there to help the Iraqi people are not the act of people who wish to see peace brought to that part of the world. They are the acts of terrorists. We need to continue working to weed them out. I am glad to see the President is doing so.
At a speech during Strom Thurmonds (Great Defender of rights to lynch blacks) 100’th Birthday,
Lott declared that his state was proud to have voted for Strom Thurmond's segregationist ticket in 1948.” And if the rest of the country had followed our lead," & added "we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years either."
posted on October 29, 2003 05:27:52 PM newMedical personnel face the cost of war daily.
Advances in medical care and bulletproof vests allow more soldiers to survive the kind of injuries that would have killed them in past conflicts. But the recent switch by Iraqi insurgents to powerful roadside bombs as their main offensive weapon has raised the number and severity of wounds even for those with high-tech protection. These bombs are usually rigged artillery shells that, hidden in vegetable crates, bicycle baskets or simple debris, can be detonated close to their target and shower it with shrapnel.
"Since May, the number and the rate of casualties has increased," says Col. Doug Liening, commander of the 21st Combat Support Hospital, which also operates a facility in the northern city of Mosul. "People in the United States do not appreciate what's going on here." In peacetime, the 21st Combat Support Hospital is based at Fort Hood, Texas, as are many of its personnel currently in Balad.
For many doctors and nurses, the daily gore makes it hard to sleep at night. "It's like a horror movie," says Capt. Nancy Emma, 49, a nurse for 16 years who worked on Sgt. Bartels in the emergency room. "I served in a trauma unit, I saw death in the face -- but nothing like here. And those who live, you've got to wonder how they are going to make it back in the States."
After the emergency room, Sgt. Bartels was wheeled into the operating room. His buddy Sgt. Myers, who received shrapnel wounds in his right arm and face, called his family back in Kansas as he waited to be treated. The two sergeants, reservists attached to the Fourth Infantry Division, were driving from a meeting at the town of Baqouba's agriculture ministry office. They accompanied a civil-affairs officer, Capt. John Teal, who was filling in for their usual captain, on leave in the U.S.
Sgt. Myers asked nurses what happened to Capt. Teal. No one could muster the courage to tell the sergeant the captain was dead, instantly killed by the roadside bomb that went through their unarmored Humvee.
Wall St. Journal
ABU GHRAIB, Iraq (AP) - U.S. troops battled Iraqi rioters when a dispute over a marketplace exploded into anti-American fury Friday. Leaflets and rumored warnings called for a "Day of Resistance" Saturday at the start of a three-day general strike to protest U.S. occupation.
Two Iraqis were killed, and 17 others and two U.S. soldiers were reported wounded at the marketplace clashes outside Baghdad, as Iraqi rioters waved portraits of Saddam Hussein and shouted "Allahu Akbar!" - "God is great!"
A bomb exploded Friday morning near an 82nd Airborne Division patrol outside Khaldiyah, west of Baghdad, killing one soldier and wounding four others, the U.S. military reported.
In Fallujah, also west of Baghdad and a center of the anti-U.S. resistance, an explosion and fire struck the office of the mayor, who has cooperated with the U.S. occupation. In a melee that followed, one Iraqi was killed. Later Friday, U.S. troops came under attack at the same spot.
Iraqi police officers rescue an injured comrade during clashes in Fallujah, 40 miles, 65 kilometers, west of Baghdad, after a strong explosion rocked the center of the city, Friday, Oct 31, 2003. Police said that following the explosion, residents shouted at the authorities that their neighborhood had become a target because the U.S.-appointed mayor and other officials worked there. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)
The fresh violence flared as U.S. forces contended with an upsurge in the 6-month-old campaign of ambushes and bombings by the shadowy resistance forces, who now strike almost three dozen times a day, mostly in central Iraq.
Young Iraqis threw stones at soldiers and tanks, set tires ablaze, and brandished Saddam portraits, shouting religious slogans.
Gunfire broke out sporadically, but then the Iraqis retired for midday prayers in nearby mosques. When they returned to the market, gunfire erupted again as more U.S. armored vehicles moved in. Ten explosions and machine-gun fire were heard, and American helicopters hovered overhead.
In late afternoon, the bodies of two Iraqi men - identified by friends as Mohammed Auweid, 45, and Hamid Abdullah, 41 - were carried from the sealed-off area.
"God damn America!" shouted friend Ali Hussein, who said the men were passing by when the Americans opened fire on rock-throwers. "U.S. soldiers are the real terrorists, not us!" he said.
Firemen extinguished the flames, and no casualties were reported, but authorities said one Iraqi was killed and one wounded when residents converged on the scene outraged that their district was again the target of an attack because it was associated with the U.S. occupation. Police shot and killed the man during the argument, said civil defense officer Ahmed Khalil reported.
posted on November 1, 2003 07:24:42 AM new
Even clinton said in his recent debate [haha] with dole [reported on AP], we cannot remove our troops now. But then he was a more moderate democrat than those who wish to Admit defeat, and leave as soon as possible.
posted on November 1, 2003 07:32:14 AM new
helen - okay...I admit to being a little confused by you statements...one calling for admitting defeat and withdrawal of our troops and now this one saying you agree with clinton that our troops shouldn't be removed.
Linda, you said...
"Even clinton said in his recent debate [haha] with dole [reported on AP], we cannot remove our troops now. But then he was a more moderate democrat than those who wish to Admit defeat, and leave as soon as possible."
I said that I agree with that, meaning that I agree that Clinton is a "moderate democrat who believes that we cannot remove our troops now".
I believe, as you indicated -- that we should admit defeat and leave as soon as possible. By saying "as soon as possible" I don't mean immediate and irresponsible pull out.
posted on November 1, 2003 07:57:20 AM new
oh, okay. I was putting your last statement together with this one: There's no other reasonable way, twelve. Sometimes it's better to admit defeat than to maintain a costly state of failure that may never end. It wasn't clear to me that you meant we should stay there for a little while and maintain this costly state of failure.
I took your statement to mean we should run right now. Glad to hear that's not the case.
posted on November 1, 2003 08:07:46 AM new
"There's no other reasonable way, twelve. Sometimes it's better to admit defeat than to maintain a costly state of failure that may never end."
That's exactly what I said, Linda. Next time you need clarification, just ask.
posted on November 1, 2003 08:14:26 AM new
Even the French, who won't contribute money nor troops to help find the Saddam supporters are saying we shouldn't withdraw.
taken from the Drudge Report:
France's foreign minister says U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be catastrophe
By ANGELA DOLAND
SAINT-SYMPHORIEN-LE-CHATEAU, France (AP) - A U.S. pullout from Iraq would be "catastrophic," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Thursday, urging countries to take a strong united stance to stabilize Iraq.
De Villepin, whose impassioned speeches at the UN Security Council against U.S. plans to attack Iraq won him international praise, spoke at the close of two days of informal talks among foreign ministers from Europe and North Africa.
When asked whether he could envision the United States pulling out of Iraq, de Villepin responded: "Obviously, a pullout from Iraq today would be catastrophic and would absolutely not correspond to the demands of the situation.
------------------------------
I can ask....you can be more clear. Saying you would prefer to see your country 'admit defeat' made a pretty big statement, on it's own,imo.
posted on November 1, 2003 08:32:59 AM new"I can ask....you can be more clear. Saying you would prefer to see your country 'admit defeat' made a pretty big statement, on it's own,imo."
Republicans would probably choose to lie and declare victory and leave.
Whatever....
There is no future in staying the course other than more killings. It says a lot to me that you would support an administration that would ruin the reputation of our good country throughout the world and lead us into battle by dishonest persuasion.
posted on November 1, 2003 08:41:30 AM newIt says a lot to me that you would support an administration that would ruin the reputation of our good country throughout the world and lead us into battle by dishonest persuasion.
A 'good reputation' is not going to matter much if our presidents, no matter their political party, don't actively work to defend our nation against the likes of binLaden and Saddam.
I support this administration in it's fight against the terrorists helen. Just as I supported clinton when he said and did the same thing. I've said before this issue, to me, is not one of which political party one sides with. It's an issue of protecting our country against those who would like to see it destroyed. There are many democrats that this is very important to also. It's not just a republican thing. But I believe we will see, come the 2004 elections, if this country is willing to put our national security in the hands of anyone who is anti-war.
Linda, I'm not going to rehash the history of Bush lies and the fact that no WMD have been found. The Bush war was a unilateral and reckless action. Failure is now so evident that Bush has resorted to PR efforts to try to convince Americans that losing is winning.
Bill Clinton would not send troops or air power that was not a part of an international effort with UN or NATO sanctions.
This day is a lose, lose proposition...either argue with you or go to the dentist...LoL!
posted on November 1, 2003 09:13:10 AM new
Yes, we are beating a dead horse again.
But in Dec. 1998 clinton, when clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq, and gave the exact same reasons for doing so that bush has given, he did not have UN approval, NOR the approval from our congress before bombing Iraq.
In that case, it was in fact, a part of an international effort. Saddam Hussein had announced that he would no longer cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors...UNSCOM. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
posted on November 1, 2003 01:32:18 PM new
KD - I have posted many times recent statements from clinton where he said AFTER the 12-98 bombing on Iraq, his intelligence was not sure if they had destroyed all, some or none of the WOMD his administration also thought they had.
----------
No helen, I'm not wrong. The UN Security Council also passed resolution 1441, by a 15-0 vote, that Saddam must come into compliance. The exact same thing. Because the would believed Saddam had these WOMD.
Why can you not be open to seeing that BOTH president clinton and bush were given the same information in regards to the WOMD. Why are you so blinded by your hatred of Bush that you can not see the similar actions, statements of both? Clinton did NOT get a vote from our Congress to bomb Iraq in 12-98. Bush did.
posted on November 1, 2003 01:46:08 PM new
But Linda, Clinton was talking about the same chemical weapons Iraq used on the Kurds. Bush is talking about the nuclear weapons that were ready to launch. Apples and oranges that all fit under the heading of womd.
[ edited by kraftdinner on Nov 1, 2003 01:49 PM ]
posted on November 1, 2003 02:25:31 PM new
Right, KD.
linda said...
"Why can you not be open to seeing that BOTH president Clinton and bush were given the same information in regards to the WOMD. Why are you so blinded by your hatred of Bush that you can not see the similar actions, statements of both? Clinton did NOT get a vote from our Congress to bomb Iraq in 12-98. Bush did."
You are simply unable to accept the fact that weapons of mass destruction existed in 1998 and were bombed into oblivion while supplies to resurrect the supply was impossible under the UN sanctions imposed while Clinton was president. THAT was a different TIME, linda... and a different situation. As I said, Clinton had international support for his bombing action. Bush only had support wrenched from Congress and obtained by false information -- to go to WAR.
According to Bush, there were weapons ready to fire in 45 minutes...nuclear bombs...even mushroom clouds were discussed.
Your unconditional trust and love of Bush is leaving you in the dark, linda. Most Americans have seen the light. Stop obsessing over what Clinton did in 1998 and focus on your president TODAY.
Helen
Who said of Saddam Hussein He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
Colin powell in February 2001
Who said of containment against Saddam Hussein We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
posted on November 1, 2003 02:55:06 PM new
I thought we were going to quit beating this dead horse.
I'm going to be editing this post...but for now here are clinton's own words on 12-98. IF you'd like I can, ONCE AGAIN, pull up his recent Larry King interview where he stated the DAY HE LEFT OFFICE, he did not know if the weapons had been destroyed.
Maybe YOU can give me a link to where clinton, himself, said we bombed the WOMD into oblivion.
You are simply unable to accept [b]the fact that weapons of mass destruction existed in 1998 and were bombed into oblivion while supplies to resurrect the supply was impossible under the UN sanctions imposed while Clinton was president. THAT was a different TIME, linda... and a different situation.
Different time, yes. Different situation, NO. Same Saddam, same threat to our country and to the world.
As I said, Clinton had international support for his bombing action. Show me by a link, where the UN gave clinton permission to BOMB Iraq in Dec. 1998.
Bush only had support wrenched from Congress and obtained by false information -- to go to war. According to Bush, there were weapons ready to fire in 45 minutes...nuclear bombs...even mushroom clouds were discussed. NO, once again you are choosing to misquote what he said. That information was given to him by intelligence from the UK. And he said so in that sentence about the 45 minute time frame.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
Helen, your hatred of Bush is blinding you to the threat BOTH clinton and bush felt Saddam presented.
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 1, 2003 03:01 PM ]
posted on November 2, 2003 09:39:46 AM new Dealing with Iraqi Deaths at Home
Excerpt...New York Times
WEST POINT, N.Y., Nov. 1 — In the last two weeks, 22 American soldiers have given their lives to the occupation of Iraq, a platoon of 21 men and 1 woman cut down to a stack of photographs by accidents, illness and the rising insurgency.
There is Lt. David Bernstein, a soldier's soldier who was killed two weeks ago and buried on Friday at the United States Military Academy here. As his mother sat with a folded flag in her lap and his father accepted a Bronze Star, even the Green Berets cried.
And there is Sgt. Aubrey Bell, the 280-pound Alabama National Guardsman, who drove a forklift and ate mayonnaise sandwiches, and who was shot to death in front of a police station.
And Pvt. Rachel Bosveld, the 19-year-old military policewoman who loved to draw forest scenes and was silenced by mortars.
And Sgt. Paul J. Johnson, a paratrooper who could imagine no fate better than leaping into the night sky, who died after being burned by a bomb.
And Pvt. Jamie L. Huggins, Pvt. Jason Ward, Pfc. John Hart, Lt. Col. Charles H. Buehring and 14 others.
President Bush declared an end to major combat hostilities in Iraq on May 1. But in the six months since then, 222 American soldiers have died, more than one a day. In October, at least 33 American soldiers were killed by hostile fire, twice as many as in September.
For every soldier killed, Pentagon officials estimate, another seven are wounded.
At the scene, villagers proudly showed off blackened pieces of wreckage to arriving reporters.
Others celebrated word of the helicopter downing, as well as a fresh attack on U.S. soldiers in Fallujah itself, where witnesses said an explosion struck one vehicle in a U.S. Army convoy at about 9 a.m. Sunday. They claimed four soldiers died, but U.S. military sources said they couldn't confirm the report.
"This was a new lesson from the resistance, a lesson to the greedy aggressors," one Fallujah resident, who wouldn't give his name, said of the helicopter downing. "They'll never be safe until they get out of our country," he said of the Americans.
posted on November 2, 2003 08:10:23 PM new
No straight thinking American could possibly be happy with what is happening to their troops, and surely they would like to see it finish sooner than later.
Failing that, in order to be able to continue his war and protect his job after the next elections, Bush’s interests would be best served by keeping American death and suffering in Iraq:- ‘Out Of Sight & Out Of Mind’ of the voters.
It’s probably the only significant weapon that the declared enemy has. ie. Letting Americans know that their troops are suffering.
The deaths of American soldiers probably does very little to diminish US Military strength, but much to reduce moral strength both there and domestically.
I think that it does much to drive the realisation of suffering home to the American voters, and that the enemy will only attempt to increase it as the presidential election approach.
Sure…There are staunch republican Voters that will continue to vote for Bush, regardless of what information is put to them, no matter if he’s ‘caught with his pants down’ or not, just as there are voters for the other sides. But it’s the swinging voters that decide, and it’s clear that there is much discontent and distrust of Bush in US at the moment.
Bush only barely managed to get enough trust and votes in the last elections, in spite of some innovative vote counting,
In the absence of an earth-shattering stunt, not even Houdini could get out of this.
Sending Jewish American Occupiers like Wolfowitz over there at the start of Ramadan, possibly only adds fuel to the fire and is seen as a slap in the face which reinforces Iraqi/Arab belief that America and Israel are in cahoots trying to dick them.
Just a brief look at the make up of the chickenhawk neo-cons of the PNAC is enough to encourage that belief.
Didn’t the war start at around Ramadan too.. are the neo-cons mad, or don’t they have a copy of the Muslim calendar?
Why doesn’t someone ‘fill them in’?
They just couldn't figure out why we kept fighting back...
