More blood on Bush's hands

[Jimcs50]

NBC News and news services
Updated: 5 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The bodies of two U.S. soldiers reported captured last week have been found and the men appear to have been “killed in a barbaric way,” a senior Iraqi general said Tuesday. A statement posted on a militant Islamic Web site said the two men were killed by the new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.

U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the remains, found late Monday by American troops, were believed to be those of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore.

Caldwell said the cause of death was “undeterminable at this point,” and that DNA tests would be conducted to confirm the identities.

The two disappeared after an insurgent attack Friday at a checkpoint by a Euphrates River canal south of Baghdad and near the town of Youssifiyah. Spc. David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass., was killed. The checkpoint was in the Sunni Arab region known as the “Triangle of Death” because of frequent ambushes there of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi troops.

The three men were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

'Barbaric' deaths
The director of the Iraqi defense military’s operation room, Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed, said the bodies showed signs of having been tortured. “With great regret, they were killed in a barbaric way,” he said.

Mohammed also said the two bodies were found on a street near Youssifiyah. The U.S. military could not confirm that account.

The bodies are to be flown to the military’s forensics lab in Dover, Del., for autopsies and to make positive identifications, U.S. military officials said. Any formal declaration of death will be withheld until the bodies are positively identified.


U.S. soldiers found the bodies based on a tip from a reliable Iraqi source, military officials told NBC News. U.S. forces had to literally fight their way to the bodies; enemy forces laid a series of improvised explosive devices, also known as IEDs, on the primary route to the bodies.

“The news is going to be heartbreaking for my family,” Ken MacKenzie, Menchaca’s uncle, told NBC’s “Today” show. He said the United States should have paid a ransom from money seized from Saddam Hussein.

“I think the U.S. was too slow to react to this. Because the U.S. did not have a plan in place, my nephew has paid with his life.”

Claims of kidnapping, killing
On Monday, the Mujahedeen Shura Council said it was holding two U.S. privates captive and taunted the U.S. military for failing to find the soldiers despite a search involving more than 8,000 Iraqi and American troops.

A statement posted on a militant Islamic Web site Tuesday said the new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq killed the soldiers.

The statement, which could not be authenticated, said the two soldiers were “slaughtered,” suggesting they had been beheaded. The Arabic word used in the statement, “nahr,” is used for the slaughtering of sheep by cutting the throat and has been used in past statements to refer to beheadings.

U.S. officials believe the new leader is Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the chief bombmaker for al-Qaida in Iraq. NBC VIDEO

• GI's uncle
June 20: Ken Mackenzie, an uncle of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, talks with "Today" show anchor Matt Lauer.
Today show



The group offered no video, identification cards or other evidence to prove that they kidnapped or killed the soldiers. The group had vowed to seek revenge for the June 7 killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, in a U.S. airstrike.

The council also said it was responsible for the June 3 kidnapping of four Russian Embassy workers. The two separate postings could not be authenticated, but they appeared on a Web site known for publishing messages from insurgent groups in Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, when asked about the claim by the Shura Council that it was holding the soldiers, said: “We have no independent confirmation of that report.”

Ahmed Khalaf Falah, a farmer, has told The Associated Press that he witnessed seven masked gunmen seize the soldiers near Youssifiyah, about 12 miles south of Baghdad.
Dangerous area
Besides the troops, the U.S. military said Monday it has deployed fighter jets, helicopters, unmanned drones, boats and dive teams in the hunt for the soldiers.

The area is among the most dangerous in Iraq for U.S. troops and mostly populated by minority Sunni Arabs, the backbone of Iraq’s 3-year-old insurgency. The two soldiers were missing after an attack on their traffic checkpoint that left one of their comrades dead.

Also, just hours before the two soldiers went missing Friday, a U.S. airstrike killed a key al-Qaida in Iraq leader described as the group’s “religious emir,” he said.

Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was killed with two foreign fighters in the same area where the soldiers’ bodies were found, the U.S. spokesman said. The three were trying to flee in a vehicle.

Al-Mashhadani was “a key leader of Al Qaida in Iraq, with excellent religious, military and leadership credentials” and tied to the senior leadership, including al-Zarqawi and his alleged replacement, Caldwell said.

Leader captured before
U.S. forces captured Mansour in July 2004 because of his ties to the militant groups Ansar al-Islam and Ansar al-Sunna, but the military let him go because he was not deemed an important terror figure at the time.

A witness to the attack Friday told The Associated Press on Sunday that insurgents swarmed the checkpoint, killing the driver of a Humvee before taking two of his comrades captive.

Ahmed Khalaf Falah, a farmer, said three Humvees at the checkpoint came under fire from many directions. Two Humvees went after the assailants but the third was ambushed.

He said seven masked gunmen, one carrying a heavy machine gun, killed the driver and took the two other U.S. soldiers captive. His account could not be verified independently.

Kidnappings of U.S. service members have been rare since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, despite the presence of about 130,000 forces.

U.S. troops patrol only in convoys. Foot patrols, while common in parts of Iraq during 2003 and 2004, have become rare because of roadside bombs, snipers and ambushes.

The last U.S. soldier to be captured was Sgt. Keith M. Maupin of Batavia, Ohio, who was taken on April 9, 2004 after insurgents ambushed his fuel convoy. Two months later, a tape on Al-Jazeera purported to show a captive U.S. soldier shot, but the Army ruled it was inconclusive.

Six soldiers, including Pvt. Jessica Lynch, were captured in an ambush in southern Iraq in the early days of the war — March 23, 2003. Lynch was rescued April 1, 2003, the others 12 days later.

[Old School Chic]

:depressed

Bush doesn't give a damn about our soldiers getting killed.

[Spurminator]

blood on Bush's hands

We sure do let terrorists off the hook around here, don't we?

[boutons_]

dubya/Repugs phony Iraq war sucked in, "brought them on", 1000's of terrorists, jihadists, and de-stabilized and destroyed a stable country that was no threat to the USA.

US military, poor fuckers, dying for Repug lies.

[xrayzebra]

The title of this thread should be: Terrorist Show Their True Colors One More Time.

And JimCS, Stick it up your ass, asshole. Bush had nothing to do with this.
The terrorist killed them. Not Bush. Put the blame where it lies. I would love
to get you in the chair and do a little drilling without the pain killer.

[Spurminator]

dubya/Repugs phony Iraq war sucked in, "brought them on", 1000's of terrorists, jihadists, and de-stabilized and destroyed a stable country that was no threat to the USA.

US military, poor fuckers, dying for Repug lies.


Yes, we've heard that rant before.

Just once I'd like to see someone in the anti-war crowd show some kind of anger towards the people responsible for committing these barbaric acts. I don't care if you think the war was justified or not. You have every right to believe it's not... but that shouldn't prevent you from being disgusted by this sort of brutality.

I think it's offensive when Bush apologists like xrayzebra question the patriotism of anyone who speaks against the war, but you guys don't make it easy on yourselves. Every event, whether it's the death of an actual or supposed terrorist leader or the death of a soldier, is used as an excuse for political/partisan soapboxing. It gets fucking old.

[pussyface]

I would love
to get you in the chair and do a little drilling without the pain killer.

Nice...I like it when you make terrorist threats.

Another thing you and the terrorists have in common: you see the world in terms of black and white. Very dangerous.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, and guess you forum name explains it all. Need a tapon.

I am considered a terrorist, while you are a good old boy. What a friggin joke you
are.

[xrayzebra]

Here is the latest update. Read how they are bragging about killing the
crusaders. Jim I want you to think about this. For a man with a good education
you sure don't show much common sense.

BREITBART.COM - Just The News

NEWS WEB
BREITBART FINANCE

Bodies of Missing U.S. Soldiers Recovered
Jun 20 1:44 PM US/Eastern


By KIM GAMEL
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq

The bodies of two U.S. soldiers reported captured last week have been recovered, and an Iraqi defense ministry official said Tuesday the men were "killed in a barbaric way." The U.S. military said the remains were believed to be those of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore.

U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said U.S. forces _ part of a search involving some 8,000 American and Iraqi troops _ found the bodies late Monday near Youssifiyah, where they disappeared Friday.

Troops did not recover the bodies until Tuesday, however, because U.S. forces had to wait until daylight to cordon off the area for an ordnance team for fear it was booby-trapped, Caldwell said.

Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility for killing the soldiers, and said the successor to slain terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had "slaughtered" them, according to a Web statement that could not be authenticated. The language in the statement suggested the men had been beheaded.

The checkpoint attacked Friday was in the Sunni Arab region known as the "Triangle of Death" because of frequent ambushes there of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi troops. Caldwell said troops encountered a lot of roadside bombs and other explosives during the three-day search, including in the area where the bodies were found.

The checkpoint attacked Friday was in the Sunni Arab region known as the "Triangle of Death" because of frequent ambushes there of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi troops. Caldwell said troops encountered a lot of roadside bombs and other explosives during the three-day search, including in the area where the bodies were found.

The cause of death was "undeterminable at this point," and the two bodies will be taken back to the United States for DNA tests to confirm the identities, Caldwell said.

The two soldiers disappeared after an insurgent attack Friday at a checkpoint by a Euphrates River canal, 12 miles south of Baghdad. Spc. David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass., was killed. The three men were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Ky.

The director of the Iraqi defense ministry's operation room, Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed, said the bodies showed signs of having been tortured. "With great regret, they were killed in a barbaric way," he said.

The claim of responsibility was made in the name of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of five insurgent groups led by al-Qaida in Iraq. The group posted an Internet statement Monday claiming it was holding the American soldiers captive.

"We give the good news ... to the Islamic nation that we have carried God's verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders," said the claim, which appeared on an Islamic militant Web site where insurgent groups regularly post statements and videos.

"With God Almighty's blessing, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer carried out the verdict of the Islamic court" calling for the soldiers' slaying, the statement said.

The statement said the soldiers were "slaughtered," suggesting that al-Muhajer beheaded them. The Arabic word used in the statement, "nahr," is used for the slaughtering of sheep by cutting the throat and has been used in past statements to refer to beheadings.

The U.S. military has identified al-Muhajer as an Egyptian associate of al-Zarqawi also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri.

The killings would be the first acts of violence attributed to al- Muhajer since he was named al-Qaida in Iraq's new leader in a June 12 Web message by the group. Al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike on June 7.

Al-Zarqawi made al-Qaida in Iraq notorious for hostage beheadings and was believed to have killed two American captives himself _ Nicholas Berg in April 2004 and Eugene Armstrong in September 2004.

Caldwell said that Iraqi and American troops involved in the search for the missing soldiers killed three suspected insurgents and detained 34 in fighting that wounded seven U.S. servicemen.

Also, just hours before the two soldiers went missing Friday, a U.S. airstrike killed a key al-Qaida in Iraq leader described as the group's "religious emir," he said.

Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was killed with two foreign fighters in the same area where the soldiers' bodies were found, the U.S. spokesman said. The three were trying to flee in a vehicle.

Al-Mashhadani was "a key leader of Al Qaida in Iraq, with excellent religious, military and leadership credentials" and tied to the senior leadership, including al-Zarqawi and his alleged replacement, Caldwell said.

U.S. forces captured Mansour in July 2004 because of his ties to the militant groups Ansar al-Islam and Ansar al-Sunna, but the military let him go because he was not deemed an important terror figure at the time.

A witness to the attack Friday told The Associated Press on Sunday that insurgents swarmed the checkpoint, killing the driver of a Humvee before taking two of his comrades captive.

Ahmed Khalaf Falah, a farmer, said three Humvees at the checkpoint came under fire from many directions. Two Humvees went after the assailants but the third was ambushed.

He said seven masked gunmen, one carrying a heavy machine gun, killed the driver and took the two other U.S. soldiers captive. His account could not be verified independently.

Kidnappings of U.S. service members have been rare since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, despite the presence of about 130,000 forces.

The last U.S. soldier to be captured was Sgt. Keith M. Maupin of Batavia, Ohio, who was taken on April 9, 2004 after insurgents ambushed his fuel convoy. Two months later, a tape on Al-Jazeera purported to show a captive U.S. soldier shot, but the Army ruled it was inconclusive and remains listed as missing.

Caldwell said that in addition to the two soldiers, a dozen Americans _ including Maupin and 11 private citizens _ are missing in Iraq. In addition, Capt. Michael Speicher, a Navy pilot, remains listed as missing in Iraq since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he said.

___

Associated Press writers Ryan Lenz in Balad, Iraq, and Nadia Abou el- Magd in Cairo, Egypt, contributed to this report.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Ocotillo]

There is a tremendous amount of outrage today over the fate that befell these young men. There should be. What happened to them is cruel, barbaric and goes against everything we and other civilized societies believe in.

Prior to discovering what had happened, the news was filled with the report that these men had disappeared and it was suspected they had been kidnapped. This is the kind of story that gets lots of play because it personalizes what is happening. You look at the photos of those guys and you can't help but think of a neighbor or friend or someone you may have run into at the supermarket.

What adds to the tragedy is the politicizing of it. Both sides are stepping over the bodies to advance their political views of the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

I am out and about today and have heard quite a bit of right wing talk radio today and of course they are using this tragedy to smear Democrats and other people who speak out against the war. What I find curious is they are having a highly emotional reaction to this episode and one of the most common critcisms they make of liberals is they react to emotionally.

How does one respond to this? I am not asking rhetorically but asking conservatives. Of course you do everything you can to find the responsible parties and well, you don't capture them alive, they just happen to get killed in action.

Or do you think they should be captured and tortured. Should they receive exactly the sort of treatment they afforded our guys?

Do you up the ante and try and kill their loved ones? Do you torture their families?

Violence begets violence and keep in mind, we need to be winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population.

If you rely on your emotions to respond it may result in something that you don't want.

It's not an easy situation and there are no easy answers left for this terrible debacle.

I understand where the logic is in saying blood is on Bush's hands but it is an emotional response and doesn't help the situation. I understand why conservatives try to allign the animals who did this with anti-war people. That is not productive.

This incident does not change my view one iota. The war was wrong to start with and was sold to the American people under false pretenses. It is time to correct this error before more damage is done to our country and redeploy our troops and let the Iraqis sort this out. We cannot force a way of life on them without dictatorial suppression.

[pussyface]

didnt say you were a terrorist.
thats not true.
i quoted you as you made a statement that was, legally speaking, a terrorist threat.
i also indentified that, like the terrorists, you are proudly and defiently anchored in a black and white world view.

[boutons_]

"these barbaric acts."

No sympathy for the terrorists here, but we war/Repug dissenters expect the knee-jerk, Rovian smear.

The US military is simply, inarguably in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. 2500 lives wasted, and counting.

For the 1000th time, the Repugs and their bullshit Iraq war DO NOT EQUAL the USA.

You conservative and Repugs and red-staters have been listening to the Repug lies repeated for so long, you believe them.

To hear the truth repeated, "ranted", really sets you off.

The truth about the Repugs, the WHIG, the Iraq war is coming out, and you people will have not a single point to stand on.

Books such as "The One Percent Doctrine." by Ron Suskind are typical of the wave of exposes that will show how badly you people have been mislead.

another wave in the irresistable tsunami of truth about WH/Repugs:

"The new documentary is on PBS tonight, from Frontline, and it's called "The Dark Side," inspired by Cheney's interview (http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html) with NBC's Tim Russert on Sept. 16, 2001, in which he spoke of military responses to terrorism then added prophetically: "We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will." "

"Sam Allis (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/06/20/dark_side_sheds_light_on_cheney/) writes in a Boston Globe review: " 'Frontline' delivers a devastating look tonight at the efforts of Vice President Dick Cheney to gain control of the war on terror after 9/11. In doing so, the show purports, he compromised the integrity of America's intelligence system. . . .

" 'Frontline' chronicles the brutal campaign by two consummate political in-fighters -- Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- to decimate the CIA, politically emasculate Secretary of State Colin Powell, and construct a near-limitless concept of executive power during war. While many of these strands are familiar, they have not been assembled as effectively before on television to present a coherent picture of what happened after 9/11." "

[xrayzebra]

There is a tremendous amount of outrage today over the fate that befell these young men. There should be. What happened to them is cruel, barbaric and goes against everything we and other civilized societies believe in.

Prior to discovering what had happened, the news was filled with the report that these men had disappeared and it was suspected they had been kidnapped. This is the kind of story that gets lots of play because it personalizes what is happening. You look at the photos of those guys and you can't help but think of a neighbor or friend or someone you may have run into at the supermarket.

What adds to the tragedy is the politicizing of it. Both sides are stepping over the bodies to advance their political views of the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

I am out and about today and have heard quite a bit of right wing talk radio today and of course they are using this tragedy to smear Democrats and other people who speak out against the war. What I find curious is they are having a highly emotional reaction to this episode and one of the most common critcisms they make of liberals is they react to emotionally.

How does one respond to this? I am not asking rhetorically but asking conservatives. Of course you do everything you can to find the responsible parties and well, you don't capture them alive, they just happen to get killed in action.

Or do you think they should be captured and tortured. Should they receive exactly the sort of treatment they afforded our guys?

Do you up the ante and try and kill their loved ones? Do you torture their families?

Violence begets violence and keep in mind, we need to be winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population.

If you rely on your emotions to respond it may result in something that you don't want.

It's not an easy situation and there are no easy answers left for this terrible debacle.

I understand where the logic is in saying blood is on Bush's hands but it is an emotional response and doesn't help the situation. I understand why conservatives try to allign the animals who did this with anti-war people. That is not productive.

This incident does not change my view one iota. The war was wrong to start with and was sold to the American people under false pretenses. It is time to correct this error before more damage is done to our country and redeploy our troops and let the Iraqis sort this out. We cannot force a way of life on them without dictatorial suppression.


They were not kidnapped, they were captured. Like POW's. And treated
as crusaders. Beheaded. And we are emotional. Well what the hell
were you when someone put a dog leash on some terrorist who had no
country, no uniform and no government, but you wanted them treated
as POW's.

Damn right I am emotional. I am absolutely outraged. I think a little
bit of WWII should come into play. Take no prisoners. And everyone
was happy as hell with that policy.

A little bit of West Texas Justice, bring those guilty SOB in here and
we will try them. And you know the rest of the story.

[Jimcs50]

The title of this thread should be: Terrorist Show Their True Colors One More Time.

And JimCS, Stick it up your ass, asshole. Bush had nothing to do with this.
The terrorist killed them. Not Bush. Put the blame where it lies. I would love
to get you in the chair and do a little drilling without the pain killer.


What an old bitter asshole you have become over the years.

:rolleyes

Nice.

[xrayzebra]

"these barbaric acts."

No sympathy for the terrorists here, but we war/Repug dissenters expect the knee-jerk, Rovian smear.

The US military is simply, inarguably in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. 2500 lives wasted, and counting.

For the 1000th time, the Repugs and their bullshit Iraq war DO NOT EQUAL the USA.

You conservative and Repugs and red-staters have been listening to the Repug lies repeated for so long, you believe them.

To hear the truth repeated, "ranted", really sets you off.

The truth about the Repugs, the WHIG, the Iraq war is coming out, and you people will have not a single point to stand on.

Books such as "The One Percent Doctrine." by Ron Suskind are typical of the wave of exposes that will show how badly you people have been mislead.


Hey boutons, where they hell were you when the embassies, the Cole
and everything else was getting blown up. With Mr. Clinton, we will
bring these people to justice? Was that where you were at. Come on
were they wrong or is it just that Bush is the only one who is wrong.

Guess the terrorist weren't in those nations either. You got the
brains of a doorknob.

[xrayzebra]

What an old bitter asshole you have become over the years.

:rolleyes

Nice.

God help you jim. I never thought I would see the day you would post
something like you have today. I have known you a long time and for
you to blame our own people for something like this is wrong and you
know damn well it is. Bitter, boy, that isn't the half of it. Any you damn
well know me to.

[Jimcs50]

Oh, and the war is Bush and his oil company owning cronie's war.


There were never any weapons of mass destruction, there was no reason fro the US to invade Iraq and now all out sons and young men are paying with their blood, so Bush and his buddies can profit.

Wake up

[Ocotillo]

where they hell were you when the embassies, the Cole
and everything else was getting blown up.

Here we are coming up on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and the same guys that did that did the things you cite and they remain free making tapes mocking the leadership of this country.

Meanwhile, we invaded a toothless tiger in the middle east without provocation and proceeded to make the wrong decision whenever a decision came up to be made. While Osama is making tapes, the bulk of our ground forces are sitting in the middle of a civil war between opportunists who could give a damn about them or our country.

Be nice if we actually put half the effort into going after al Qaeda that we do in screwing around in Iraq nationbuilding.

[Jimcs50]

God help you jim. I never thought I would see the day you would post
something like you have today. I have known you a long time and for
you to blame our own people for something like this is wrong and you
know damn well it is. Bitter, boy, that isn't the half of it. Any you damn
well know me to.


Hal, Bush turned the Iraqis into terrorists.

Until this war, 70% of all terroristskilling Americans ( 9/11, US Embassy, USS Cole bombings)were from Bush's biggest "ally" Saudi Arabia. But since we profit from the Saudis, Bush turns a blind eye on those terrorists, does'nt he????.

Wake up!!!

[xrayzebra]

Oh, and the war is Bush and his oil company owning cronie's war.


There were never any weapons of mass destruction, there was no reason fro the US to invade Iraq and now all out sons and young men are paying with their blood, so Bush and his buddies can profit.

Wake up

No jim, you need to wake up. This not a war about oil, although without it
you may not be able to make it to your game on the weekends.

There were WMD's, we just don't know what happened to them. He used
them, remember? Where did they go. He wouldn't tell us nor would he
let anyone in to really check. All the world knew he WMD, you are not
so stupid to believe otherwise. England, Germany, France and the USSR
as well as the United Nations thought he had WMD.

The next argument you will use was that the terrorist weren't in Iraq.
Well, when did the old boy we just killed go to Iraq. It was before we
invaded. Iraq was up to the eyebrows with the terrorist, sending money
to the families of those terrorist killed, remember.

No you aren't going to cop out with the dummies arguments, you have
more sense than that. Remember I know you better than that. You cant
use boutons arguments. You going to have to do a hell of a lot better
than that.

[turambar85]

X-ray, I can't speak for Jim, but I suspect that you have him all wrong, and are taking this way too far.

It is not wrong to say that your country has some fault in a tragic incident. It is not wrong to blame the leaders of America. You said it once when speaking of the flag-burning that politicians come and go, that America is greater than that.

Well, you were partly right.

A true patriot questions authority and it's actions. People like Jim and I blame these politicians and hold them accountable because we truly do love America, and are thankful that we live here. Thankful that we live somewhere where we can question the authority. Well, we have that right and we will use the hell out of it.

Bush is simply a small player in the history of time. Historians will prove his actions to be either a great leap in the great American tradition, and will deem him a trailblazer who would stand up to any adversity, or it will decide that he was a ruthless cutthroat who let personal needs stand above the rest of the country. But you know what? It won't matter.

We are standing up in order to try and make a difference. We have no loyalty to people like Bush and Cheney, but to America. They are irrelevant. If they threaten this country and its ideals, and if they threaten the rest of the world, then we will rain down like hells angels, eyes burning with the fires of vengeance. That is not un-patriotic.

I know that it is hard to listen to what these people are saying, especially with the era in which you grew up. You were a soldier you say, well thank God for you and people like you. I will support the average soldier until I die. But, my support is deep enough that I will place my full fury on every political and military leader who threatens their lives for their own good. I have allegiance to the soldiers, not the people who pull their strings.

So, please can the talk of patriotism and Al-quaida-ism and realize that we are just as patriotic as the men with flags painted on the back of their trucks who play Toby Keith on the way to work. We just go about it in a different way.

[Jimcs50]

No jim, you need to wake up. This not a war about oil, although without it
you may not be able to make it to your game on the weekends.

There were WMD's, we just don't know what happened to them. He used
them, remember? Where did they go. He wouldn't tell us nor would he
let anyone in to really check. All the world knew he WMD, you are not
so stupid to believe otherwise. England, Germany, France and the USSR
as well as the United Nations thought he had WMD.

The next argument you will use was that the terrorist weren't in Iraq.
Well, when did the old boy we just killed go to Iraq. It was before we
invaded. Iraq was up to the eyebrows with the terrorist, sending money
to the families of those terrorist killed, remember.

No you aren't going to cop out with the dummies arguments, you have
more sense than that. Remember I know you better than that. You cant
use boutons arguments. You going to have to do a hell of a lot better
than that.



Where did they go????

Do you remember the Gulf War????

[Ocotillo]

The next argument you will use was that the terrorist weren't in Iraq.
Well, when did the old boy we just killed go to Iraq. It was before we
invaded. Iraq was up to the eyebrows with the terrorist, sending money
to the families of those terrorist killed, remember.



This is not accurate. Saddam did send money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Terrorists, true but nothing to do with the ones threatening us.

Zarqawi was in the Kurdish controlled part of Iraq prior to the invasion. We knew where he was but the administration made a conscience decision not to take him out as it would lesson the arguments for invading Iraq.

Think about that. We could have taken out al Zarqawi before the invasion and saved countless lives but Bush chose not to.

Iraq was not up to it's eyebrows with terrorists. Afghanistan, Saudi, Somalia, the Sudan, yeah, but Iraq nope.

[xrayzebra]

Hal, Bush turned the Iraqis into terrorists.

Until this war, 70% of all terroristskilling Americans ( 9/11, US Embassy, USS Cole bombings)were from Bush's biggest "ally" Saudi Arabia. But since we profit from the Saudis, Bush turns a blind eye on those terrorists, does'nt he????.

Wake up!!!

Yes, the Saudis have their hands bloodied too. All the ME does. It is like
Mexico, corrupt as hell. Always has been and in my lifetime, always will be.
That is why the terrorist are able to operate as freely as they do. Buy
people off.

But when they took on the Royal family they screwed up big time. Got a
bunch of them killed, the terrorist. More than likely they are now back to
the old game plan, laying low and paying off everyone again.

the Mullahs also like all the power that this movement gives them. They
are in this crap right up to their eyebrows.

But we had to start somewhere and Iraq was a good a place as any. I
was disappointed and surprised that we didn't take the whole of the ME
on at the very beginning and some I talk to felt the same. Oil was one
big factor I'm sure. Keeping the American public happy was another,
we have become so jaded in our lifestyle that we don't want anything
to interrupt it. It is sad but true.

[Jimcs50]

X-ray, I can't speak for Jim, but I suspect that you have him all wrong, and are taking this way too far.

It is not wrong to say that your country has some fault in a tragic incident. It is not wrong to blame the leaders of America. You said it once when speaking of the flag-burning that politicians come and go, that America is greater than that.

Well, you were partly right.

A true patriot questions authority and it's actions. People like Jim and I blame these politicians and hold them accountable because we truly do love America, and are thankful that we live here. Thankful that we live somewhere where we can question the authority. Well, we have that right and we will use the hell out of it.

Bush is simply a small player in the history of time. Historians will prove his actions to be either a great leap in the great American tradition, and will deem him a trailblazer who would stand up to any adversity, or it will decide that he was a ruthless cutthroat who let personal needs stand above the rest of the country. But you know what? It won't matter.

We are standing up in order to try and make a difference. We have no loyalty to people like Bush and Cheney, but to America. They are irrelevant. If they threaten this country and its ideals, and if they threaten the rest of the world, then we will rain down like hells angels, eyes burning with the fires of vengeance. That is not un-patriotic.

I know that it is hard to listen to what these people are saying, especially with the era in which you grew up. You were a soldier you say, well thank God for you and people like you. I will support the average soldier until I die. But, my support is deep enough that I will place my full fury on every political and military leader who threatens their lives for their own good. I have allegiance to the soldiers, not the people who pull their strings.

So, please can the talk of patriotism and Al-quaida-ism and realize that we are just as patriotic as the men with flags painted on the back of their trucks who play Toby Keith on the way to work. We just go about it in a different way.


Well said.

Hal is an old bitter rose tinted glasses wearing flag waving fool. He will back anything that a US president does. He probably thought Watergate was just a couple of good ol boys having some laughs.

[xrayzebra]

This is not accurate. Saddam did send money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Terrorists, true but nothing to do with the ones threatening us.

Zarqawi was in the Kurdish controlled part of Iraq prior to the invasion. We knew where he was but the administration made a conscience decision not to take him out as it would lesson the arguments for invading Iraq.

Think about that. We could have taken out al Zarqawi before the invasion and saved countless lives but Bush chose not to.

Iraq was not up to it's eyebrows with terrorists. Afghanistan, Saudi, Somalia, the Sudan, yeah, but Iraq nope.


This is the bloggers argument.

I could counter by saying Clinton had the change to take out OBL, but
didn't because some prince was in the hunting camp.

[Jimcs50]

Yes, the Saudis have their hands bloodied too. All the ME does. It is like
Mexico, corrupt as hell. Always has been and in my lifetime, always will be.
That is why the terrorist are able to operate as freely as they do. Buy
people off.

But when they took on the Royal family they screwed up big time. Got a
bunch of them killed, the terrorist. More than likely they are now back to
the old game plan, laying low and paying off everyone again.

the Mullahs also like all the power that this movement gives them. They
are in this crap right up to their eyebrows.

But we had to start somewhere and Iraq was a good a place as any. I
was disappointed and surprised that we didn't take the whole of the ME
on at the very beginning and some I talk to felt the same. Oil was one
big factor I'm sure. Keeping the American public happy was another,
we have become so jaded in our lifestyle that we don't want anything
to interrupt it. It is sad but true.


Bush and his daddy before him have been in bed with Fahad since the 80s....as long as they get rich with his money, they will not ever do anything to stop the flow of terrorists from that country.

wake up!

[Ocotillo]

This is the bloggers argument.

An effective one.


I could counter by saying Clinton had the change to take out OBL, but
didn't because some prince was in the hunting camp.

A terrible mistake. When he did try though, the Republican punditry and congress accused him of wagging the dog. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[xrayzebra]

Well said.

Hal is an old bitter rose tinted glasses wearing flag waving fool. He will back anything that a US president does. He probably thought Watergate was just a couple of good ol boys having some laughs.

Yeah, jim. So much for Nixon and his dumbass group.

No I didn't back Clinton and him getting a blowjob. But boys will be boys.
I think in my younger days Clinton and I could have had some good times.
Except I would have been jealous because, well because.

I would have backed Clinton if he had enough guts to do something besides
blow up a couple of empty tents and a Tylenol factory. But he didn't so I
cant prove my statement.

I just wished people would lay blame where blame should be. Bush didn't
behead these young men. The Terrorist did and now are bragging about it.
And Jim, you want to blame our President for the deed. That is sick and
I mean sick.

Where in the hell is the outrage against those that did the deed.
What will you say when some other incident occurs where we insult or
don't give a lawyer to one of these thugs. We are horrible, we are wrong,
we are not be humane.

Like I said, I am for going back to my youth, lets do the WWII thing,
take no prisoners. Let's send them to their paradise at the earliest
possible moment.

[pussyface]

no matter what xray says, you can always come back with "okay, but at the end of the day you are still a partisan hack." As someone else said in this thread and I have been harping on all day, this guy will justify anything if it benifits the president.

check out my post in the "Deficit" thread. The topic has changed from budget talk to partisan robot zombie talk. You need to respond to this one Ray.

[ChumpDumper]

We took in about 425,000 prisoners in WWII. Maybe you should be more specific.

[Oh, Gee!!]

We took in about 425,000 prisoners in WWII. Maybe you should be more specific.


he meant the Nazis, his idols.

[xrayzebra]

Bush and his daddy before him have been in bed with Fahad since the 80s....as long as they get rich with his money, they will not ever do anything to stop the flow of terrorists from that country.

wake up!

I am quite awake jim. Your an old Texas boy, like me. Oil has made many
rich. And will make many more rich. But it is also the life blood of this
country. Although many think otherwise. It is used for many more things
than running cars. (many a young girl can testify to that, right jim).
Just throwing in a little humor.

You cannot cut off the flow of oil from those countries without shutting down
everything moving over here, except essential transportation. I am not sure
nor or the politicians, that the public is ready for that. My God, look how
they are screaming now about price, although it has never kept up with
the inflation rate.

People just don't know what rationing is really all about. And wont
until they have to live with it. I think they average family in WWII got
about two gallons of gas a week. Tires were non-existent. Cigarettes
were scarce. And many other everyday objects disappeared altogether.
Think we are really ready for all that?

Oh, and jim, don't forget Bush had a big interest in the Rangers baseball
team. Think he may be recruiting over there?

[Jimcs50]

Yeah, jim. So much for Nixon and his dumbass group.

No I didn't back Clinton and him getting a blowjob. But boys will be boys.
I think in my younger days Clinton and I could have had some good times.
Except I would have been jealous because, well because.

I would have backed Clinton if he had enough guts to do something besides
blow up a couple of empty tents and a Tylenol factory. But he didn't so I
cant prove my statement.

I just wished people would lay blame where blame should be. Bush didn't
behead these young men. The Terrorist did and now are bragging about it.
And Jim, you want to blame our President for the deed. That is sick and
I mean sick.

Where in the hell is the outrage against those that did the deed.
What will you say when some other incident occurs where we insult or
don't give a lawyer to one of these thugs. We are horrible, we are wrong,
we are not be humane.

Like I said, I am for going back to my youth, lets do the WWII thing,
take no prisoners. Let's send them to their paradise at the earliest
possible moment.


What good will it do to blame the terrorists??? Have you not learned anything from the Israelis???? One act begets another and on and on and on and on and on. We kill them, they kill us. That is never going to stop. Bush created the Iraqi terrorists....do you not agree with this?????

Had we not illegally invaded Iraq, there would be no terrorists beheading our soldiers. The terrorists of today were the Republican Guard of yesterday, they were totally innocuous to our soldiers prior to our invasion.

Bush has blood on his hands, because he created the environment in which all young men are dying.

[xrayzebra]

We took in about 425,000 prisoners in WWII. Maybe you should be more specific.


Well Chump, an apt name, I am talking about the Pacific Theater. They
finally had to tell the troops to stop. We needed some prisoners to question
for intel.

The European theater was a different matter. Study a little history and you
will see many of the German prisoners were brought to Texas.

None of the Japanese were brought to the states as far as I remember.

[Sgt. Toomey]

Xray would need three promotions to get to be an asshole.

[Jimcs50]

Hal, we need oil, but we need an alternative energy source even more. We have the technology to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but Bush will have none of it, because his family is wealthy becauuse of oil and he owes people for it...people in the industry.

Bush could care less about Iraq being free. If he was so concerned about freedom, why do we let other dictators in the world(Africa, Latin America, Far East) have Carte blanche? Because they do not have oil, that is why.

[xrayzebra]

What good will it do to blame the terrorists??? Have you not learned anything from the Israelis???? One act begets another and on and on and on and on and on. We kill them, they kill us. That is never going to stop. Bush created the Iraqi terrorists....do you not agree with this?????

Had we not illegally invaded Iraq, there would be no terrorists beheading our soldiers. The terrorists of today were the Republican Guard of yesterday, they were totally innocuous to our soldiers prior to our invasion.

Bush has blood on his hands, because he created the environment in which all young men are dying.


Nope, I don't agree with that. Yes, there will always be terrorist. There
were before this started. There was always murder, there will always be
murder. But it doesn't mean you quit fighting it.

We didn't illegally invade Iraq. It was authorized by Congress. Bush
complied with their wishes and they debated it and passed a resolution
backing it.

Bush created no enviornment. He did not seek nor was he looking for
any excuse to invade Iraq or any other nation. Events occured before he
was President, as cited in previous post. He reacted to an act of war.
The attacked on the WTC on 9/11 that killed 2000 people. Are you
forgetting that. More than were killed at Pearl Harbor. What are we
to do when the next act of war occurs? Ignore it. It is going to happen
you know that don't you. It is not if, it is when. We cant be lucky
forever. Our open borders invite all to come in. And there many that
don't want anything done to prevent it. Like listening in to phone
calls on international frequencies. A whole different argument.

[ChumpDumper]

Well Chump, an apt name, I am talking about the Pacific Theater. They
finally had to tell the troops to stop. We needed some prisoners to question
for intel.

The European theater was a different matter. Study a little history and you
will see many of the German prisoners were brought to Texas.

None of the Japanese were brought to the states as far as I remember.About 5500 Japanese prisoners of war were held in the US. Perhaps it is you who should study a little history.

Besides, what the hell was your point? Kill everyone indiscriminately?

[xrayzebra]

Hal, we need oil, but we need an alternative energy source even more. We have the technology to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but Bush will have none of it, because his family is wealthy becauuse of oil and he owes people for it...people in the industry.

Bush could care less about Iraq being free. If he was so concerned about freedom, why do we let other dictators in the world(Africa, Latin America, Far East) have Carte blanche? Because they do not have oil, that is why.

Jim I agree, the world is in terrible shape, dictator wise. But where in the
hell do we start and where do we stop. People have been starving for as
long as I can remember. I don't like it. But I cant feed all of them, nor can
our country. I guess what I am saying is that we have to set priorities.
And self interest is one of the biggest. Oil is in our self interest. Not just
the industry, and you know that. You are just like me and everyone
else over here. We have always been mobile and want to stay that way.
That is why people who deal in oil got rich. I disagree on one point about
Africa. It is rich in oil and we haven't done a hell of a lot about their
problem and they have one of the biggest in the world. Hunger and
poverty and HIV. Go figuer.

Yes, we need to look down the road for alternative sources of fuel. But
in your lifetime, cause you are younger, you oant see one. Oil is too
plentiful and cheap, conpared to other sources of energy. One of the
things we need to do is drill more of our own. Our oil production has
actually decreased while every other countries oil production has increased.
We have so many oil resources available and people think the world is
going to end if we tap into them. While just miles off our own coast
other countries are starting to drill (China for Cuba).

But not the subject. Just don't forget who slaughtered these young men.
It was not Bush. It was the terrorist.

[xrayzebra]

About 5500 Japanese prisoners of war were held in the US. Perhaps it is you who should study a little history.

Besides, what the hell was your point? Kill everyone indiscriminately?

5500, wow! How many did you say were taken.

I said nothing about indiscriminately.

[ChumpDumper]

At long last, what is your point?

How should this be like WWII?

[xrayzebra]

We take no prisoners. They fight us, they die. Pure and simple. They attempt
to give up, they die. Just like they did to young men who surrendered and was
slaughtered.

[Oh, Gee!!]

We take no prisoners. They fight us, they die. Pure and simple. They attempt
to give up, they die. Just like they did to young men who surrendered and was
slaughtered.


So it's wrong for them to do it to us, but not the other way around?

[xrayzebra]

They started it, we finish it. Is that so hard to understand. Just like WWII.

If they want to fight that way, I have no problem. Lets just don't
pretend we cant do what they do.

Mess with the bull, you get the horn.

[Oh, Gee!!]

They started it, we finish it. Is that so hard to understand. Just like WWII.

If they want to fight that way, I have no problem. Lets just don't
pretend we cant do what they do.

Mess with the bull, you get the horn.


Didn't you tell somebody they should learn to live by the rules in another thread? Same advice doesn't apply to you?

[xrayzebra]

That is living by the rules. The ones they made. They didn't like ours. So we
will play by theirs.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That is living by the rules. The ones they made. They didn't like ours. So we
will play by theirs.

So you're suggesting that the rules should be changed to fit the situation?

[Dimm-O-Crap]

Impeach Bush!

[ChumpDumper]

Most accounts I read say the Japanese didn't surrender most of the time and fought to the death.

Anyway, this is a very different conflict.

[xrayzebra]

So you're suggesting that the rules should be changed to fit the situation?


Nope, we just play by their rules.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Nope, we just play by their rules.


whose rules are right?

[xrayzebra]

Most accounts I read say the Japanese didn't surrender most of the time and fought to the death.

Anyway, this is a very different conflict.

Always a different conflict. War my boy is war.
Break things and kill people.
Fight to win. Being nice is not winning.

[ChumpDumper]

So what specifically should be like WWII? Just killing people if they refuse to surrender like the Japanese is already in the rules of engagement, so your wistful bloodlust is redundant.

[xrayzebra]

Surrender is not a option.

[Nbadan]

All occupations eventually end, and it's rarely good at the end for the occupier.

[ChumpDumper]

Surrender is not a option.Do you just have a macro that spews out random chiches?

[exstatic]

Yes, we've heard that rant before.

Just once I'd like to see someone in the anti-war crowd show some kind of anger towards the people responsible for committing these barbaric acts. I don't care if you think the war was justified or not. You have every right to believe it's not... but that shouldn't prevent you from being disgusted by this sort of brutality.

I think it's offensive when Bush apologists like xrayzebra question the patriotism of anyone who speaks against the war, but you guys don't make it easy on yourselves. Every event, whether it's the death of an actual or supposed terrorist leader or the death of a soldier, is used as an excuse for political/partisan soapboxing. It gets fucking old.
It would be hypocritical to be angry at them for torture/murder when our own govt. is doing and outsourcing the same thing every day. We hold no moral high ground here, also thank to this administration.

[jochhejaam]

Less than 24 hours after 2 American soldiers are discovered tortured and killed in a barbaric manner by terrorists people feel the need to politicize their deaths.

Lovely

[xrayzebra]

Less than 24 hours after 2 American soldiers are discovered tortured and killed in a barbaric manner by terrorists people feel the need to politicize their deaths.

Lovely

And you too don't want to condemn those that did the beheading.
Just show your anger at those that do. Lovely!

[jochhejaam]

Originally Posted by jochhejaam
Less than 24 hours after 2 American soldiers are discovered tortured and killed in a barbaric manner by terrorists people feel the need to politicize their deaths.

Lovely




And you too don't want to condemn those that did the beheading.
Just show your anger at those that do. Lovely!
I didn't ondemn them??? Didn't I quantify their acts as barbaric and label them as terrorists?
<sigh> Okay xray the acts were extremely barbaric and the perpetrators of this heinous crime are the muthers of all terrrorists. Hows that?

Add me to the list of those who find your posts confusing.

[smeagol]

Is xray actually admitting this war is about oil?

[spurschick]

I can't believe that human beings would do this to each other.

[exstatic]

I can't believe that human beings would do this to each other.
Cain...Abel.

Billy Shakespeare had it right: There is nothing new under the sun.

[Spurminator]

It would be hypocritical to be angry at them for torture/murder when our own govt. is doing and outsourcing the same thing every day. We hold no moral high ground here, also thank to this administration.


???

I don't recall the American Military performing beheadings. If you're comparing this to Abu Ghraib, you're stretching. Big time.

Moral equivalency doesn't work here. Quite frankly, it's fucking offensive.

[exstatic]

???

I don't recall the American Military performing beheadings. If you're comparing this to Abu Ghraib, you're stretching. Big time.

Moral equivalency doesn't work here. Quite frankly, it's fucking offensive.
How do you know what they're doing? You only see stock footage and stories from Gitmo and Abu Graib. There is a WHOLE network of Eastern European sites that we know nothing about, not to mention flat exporting (without due process, that little incovenience) people to places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Guess what? Those people have NO compunction about torturing and killing prisoners, and if one of our quick and quiet, due process free exports results in a death, that IS on this administration's hands.

Oh, and there have been deaths at Abu Graib. I don't think it makes a difference to the dead if they were beheaded or not.

[01Snake]

How do you know what they're doing? You only see stock footage and stories from Gitmo and Abu Graib. There is a WHOLE network of Eastern European sites that we know nothing about, not to mention flat exporting (without due process, that little incovenience) people to places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Guess what? Those people have NO compunction about torturing and killing prisoners, and if one of our quick and quiet, due process free exports results in a death, that IS on this administration's hands.

Oh, and there have been deaths at Abu Graib. I don't think it makes a difference to the dead if they were beheaded or not.

HOLY Shit you're and IDIOT!

[1369]

I could give two good shits about politics, WMD (supposed or not), the Bush administration and big oil. The bugs who killed PFC Tucker and PFC Menchaca deserve no less than to be hunted down where they hide and have a round driven through their brain pan.

Will some of you on this board consider me a goose-stepping automoton fed the pablum of the current administration for my remarks? Perhaps. But those remarks are mine and mine alone. Last time I checked, these men served the same country I did, and I say as their brother, I have a voice that says their deaths deserve retribution.

We take care of our own.

[1369]

It would be hypocritical to be angry at them for torture/murder when our own govt. is doing and outsourcing the same thing every day. We hold no moral high ground here, also thank to this administration.

I'm curious Ex, just where is this documentd? Now, per some of the Islamic websites and news footage, we do have corrobating evidence of murder against the insurgents, but I have yet to find any convincing evidence against the coalition troops.

[boutons_]

"any convincing evidence against the coalition troops."

3 soldiers were charged by the US militarywith murder this week, and that was NOT for Haditha. Sounds like the US military some "evidence" that you ought to pay attention to.


Here's some "lies" from the BBC about Haditha:

US braced for Haditha effect

By John Simpson

BBC News, World affairs editor

What happened in Haditha may just possibly change the future of the war in Iraq.

The lawyer for one of the marines accused of the massacre has told the BBC that criminal charges will probably be brought soon.

And we have found that the marines were operating under some very disturbing conditions.

The accusation is that after a US marine lance corporal died in a roadside bombing in Haditha last November, his fellow marines went on a killing spree.

Twenty-four people died in the attack, including seven women and three children.

A 12-year-old girl who survived says the Americans killed them indiscriminately.

The marines said they had came under fire from the houses where the people died.

The lawyer representing one marine told us he believed they would face charges, but said they were following their rules of engagement.

"I don't think the facts will show they intentionally killed those civilians," Paul Hackett said. "It was in the heat of battle, in the heat of clearing the houses.

"That is, like it or not, that is what those marines are required to do. They are required to close with the enemy, and kill the enemy."

'Feral' conditions

But Haditha is not the only massacre that has been alleged against the US forces.

A US inquiry has cleared them of blame for the deaths of civilians in Ishaqi in March - yet leading figures in the Iraqi government are unhappy, and want a wider investigation.

But what happened at Haditha seems more clear-cut.

It is an intensely dangerous place for the Americans, and the battle-weary men of Kilo Company - the unit which included the marines accused of the massacre - had lost a lot of men there.

And they were operating under disturbing circumstances.

Kilo Company's headquarters were three miles north of Haditha, at a vast dam across the Euphrates. It is a big target, because it supplies power to much of southern Iraq.

Four hundred men of the First Marine regiment were based in this decaying rabbit-warren. Conditions were so disgusting, many just moved out.

They set up these unofficial shacks alongside it. Conditions at the dam have been described as "feral".

Oliver Poole is one of the few reporters to have been there, shortly after the alleged massacre. He was shocked by these strange, primitive huts, which lacked even basic hygiene.

"You walked in and the first words were 'F off', and they were ripping pieces of wood apart to feed the fire," he said. "You could see the conditions in which they lived. And they were filthy. It was disgusting."

There seemed to him to be no real discipline.

"The fact that the officers had let conditions deteriorate to the level in which where people living in such basic environment, that says something," he said. "Where were the officers keeping the standards that the US military keeps in the field?"

Blame game

The marines of Kilo Company are now back at Camp Pendleton, in California. But that question of keeping the men under proper control is essential.

"The hardest thing is not necessarily killing someone or shooting someone; it's not killing someone or shooting someone when you're angry," said Paul Rieckhoff of the Iraqi Veterans Campaign.

"When someone in your unit is killed or wounded it's like someone attacked your family. The responsibility then is on one of the squad leaders, platoon leaders, team leaders to hold those guys back."

Up to now in the US, those against the war have blamed the people at the very top for what is happening in Iraq.

But the news that three American soldiers have been charged in connection with the deaths of three prisoners in Iraq last month - and the probable charges over Haditha - may mean that Americans will now start blaming those who are actually fighting the war as well.

Just as they did in Vietnam.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/5098634.stm

Published: 2006/06/20 13:24:08 GMT

© BBC MMVI

===================

I don't blame the people at the bottom (at the military or economic bottom, the people will always get screwed by the people at the top). dubya/dickhead/Repugs are solely responsible for starting the phony Iraq war, which is just like any war, with atrocities on both sides.

But the real atrocity, the impeachable atrocity, is dubya/dickhead/wolfie/condi/powell/rummy/Repugs.

[jochhejaam]

It would be hypocritical to be angry at them for torture/murder when our own govt. is doing and outsourcing the same thing every day. We hold no moral high ground here, also thank to this administration.
Even if American soldiers were torturing, butchering and beheading the enemy, which they aren't, you'd have to be one soulless creature to take the position you've taken.
Moral high ground has nothing to do with feeling extreme anger towards anyone that would carry out these mindless acts.

[boutons_]

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/06/21/db060621.gif

[Jimcs50]

Less than 24 hours after 2 American soldiers are discovered tortured and killed in a barbaric manner by terrorists people feel the need to politicize their deaths.

Lovely


I am not politizing this. I voted for the Republican canidate in every election since Ford.

I am just sick of our young men dying for nothing but corporate America, just like in Viet Nam.

It is an insult that Bush tries to sell this war as a war to free the Iraqis, and give them democracy. As I said, there are dozens of dictatorships throughout the world where people are being killed, where genocide is occuring, and the US turns a blind eye to them, because those countries have nothing that we can use to benefit us.

Bush should just admit that we want to take Iraq so we can all have a better bottom line and we can all pay less for oil and gas....at least be honest. I can deal with that.

[Jules]

No jim, you need to wake up. This not a war about oil, although without it
you may not be able to make it to your game on the weekends.

There were WMD's, we just don't know what happened to them. He used
them, remember? Where did they go. He wouldn't tell us nor would he
let anyone in to really check. All the world knew he WMD, you are not
so stupid to believe otherwise. England, Germany, France and the USSR
as well as the United Nations thought he had WMD.


They may have "thought" that there were WMD, but *they did not support the U.S. in striking first. *Blair did (his leash is short).

On a footnote, if the U.S. did not have special interest in Irag (oil), do you honestly believe this war would have been waged? Dictatorship, my ass. Capitalists/neoliberalists always have an agenda... $$$!

[Jules]

Hal, we need oil, but we need an alternative energy source even more. We have the technology to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but Bush will have none of it, because his family is wealthy becauuse of oil and he owes people for it...people in the industry.

Bush could care less about Iraq being free. If he was so concerned about freedom, why do we let other dictators in the world(Africa, Latin America, Far East) have Carte blanche? Because they do not have oil, that is why.

Absolutely Jim!

[Ya Vez]

people have no clue about cheap oil and our economy... till we off the oil binge.. we are fighting wars for it... in times of war you protect your energy supplies.. how many men died in wars protecting or fuel supplies.. carrying fuel to the front line... war is hell either get a stomach for it.. and realize it's painful... or get ready to become poor and lose your way of life.... sheesh....

[rascal]

Oh, and the war is Bush and his oil company owning cronie's war.


There were never any weapons of mass destruction, there was no reason fro the US to invade Iraq and now all out sons and young men are paying with their blood, so Bush and his buddies can profit.

Wake up
Great post Jim. Agree. I like that many here on this board see the Bush and the Republican propaganda machine which pushes out fancy catch phrases like the "war on terror" and "cut and run" liberal policy as attempts to camoulflage what the reality is. The "war on terror" was nothing more than an unprovoked invasion for profits.

[rascal]

I'm curious Ex, just where is this documentd? Now, per some of the Islamic websites and news footage, we do have corrobating evidence of murder against the insurgents, but I have yet to find any convincing evidence against the coalition troops.

Wake up and take your head out of the sand. Use some common sense. There is much more than what we see on our antiseptic news casts here in America.

If you believe US forces are not killing innocent people your a moran.

[rascal]

Always a different conflict. War my boy is war.
Break things and kill people.
Fight to win. Being nice is not winning.

That is your reply to justify when Americans kill innocent civilians but its just as wrong as what you bitch about when an American dies. To kill is wrong, period, as a Christian belief. But then maybe you don't believe in Christs teachings.

[jochhejaam]

I am not politizing this. I voted for the Republican canidate in every election since Ford.

I am just sick of our young men dying for nothing but corporate America, just like in Viet Nam.

It is an insult that Bush tries to sell this war as a war to free the Iraqis, and give them democracy. As I said, there are dozens of dictatorships throughout the world where people are being killed, where genocide is occuring, and the US turns a blind eye to them, because those countries have nothing that we can use to benefit us.

Bush should just admit that we want to take Iraq so we can all have a better bottom line and we can all pay less for oil and gas....at least be honest. I can deal with that.
Jim, you posted the article in the Political Forum and titled it "more blood on Bush's hands", that's politicizing it. With that being said I fully understand and empathize with the frustration and anger that drove you to post it.
I'm equally sickened at our soldiers being killed but I put the blame squarely on those that committed and commit the atrocities, the terrorists. Iraq is the main theatre where the battle against terrorism is being fought, better there than here in my opinion. We didn't invade Iraq because of genocide or because Saddam was a dictator or because of the rising cost of oil, we invaded Iraq because;

1. Iraq did have WMD programs, and the United Nations has confirmed this. There's strong evidence that some of what these programs produced got hidden or dismantled and sent out of the country before U.S. soldiers could get to them. This summer's findings make this even more clear, not that these are getting reported. Bush's speeches, from as early as September 2002, did not claim that Saddam had large stockpiles of WMD. He emphasized stopping him as he was exploring and taking steps toward gaining them before he could do so. He may have believed there to be large stockpiles, but he himself didn't make the argument on that basis.

2. Iraq was seeking to get yellowcake uranium from Niger, and the intelligence on this that the British had was indeed good intelligence. We were lied to and otherwise misled about this by people who hate Bush.

3. U.N. resolutions required Iraq to rid itself of WMD and not seek more. After Saddam Hussein seemed to be complying on and off, he entered a mode of complete resistance to the U.N. on this issue, and President Clinton wrote some very strong comments advocating doing exactly what we did if things didn't change on the grounds of a 1991 resolution. They did change for a while, but they reverted again during Bush's presidency, and the same issue arose once again.

4. All the major countries of NATO, and many others in the U.N., knew that Saddam Hussein had restarted his WMD programs and believed that his progress was further along than many of them now think they turned out to be. This was not a U.S. intelligence problem, and the existence of any intelligence errors does not disprove the fact that he had the programs (with progress enough to have some WMD) and had made numerous threats against the U.S.

5. Bush's WMD argument was that we must anticipate potential attacks before they become imminent, that we had no indication that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat, but that he could become one without any warning. Once he reached the status of being able to attack imminently, you can't predict when it will be, and you can't wait until the attack begins to defend against it when the damage done would be something on the order of 9/11. This was a continuation of the policy of the previous administration, not a new "Bush doctrine", and it was based on the 1991 resolution that declared hostilies to be ended only due to Saddam's cooperation on disarmament issues.

6. Other issues were on Bush's list of reasons to invade Iraq as early as September 2002. These include:
a. long-range missiles (which were used on day 1 of the invasion)
b. support for terrorism (which was fairly well-known if not fully confirmed, regardless of the al Qaeda connection, which was determined to be at least and perhaps not more than a mere connection of communication)
c. persecution of ethnic and other groups not in power in Iraq
d. soldiers MIA since the 1990 conflict, stolen U.S. property from that conflict, both included in U.N. resolutions
e. illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program (this was before we knew about the illict trade within the oil-for-food program)
f. If Saddam could acquire enough of the weapons he was working on getting, he would have more ability to persecute the people within his own country and to throw his weight around in neighboring countries, as we already knew him to do in cases such as Kuwait in 1989.

http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2004/07/revisiting_the.html



There are haters of America and Americans around the World that won't buy into these reasons but to dismiss or ignore them outright is pure, unadulterated foolishness. The war on terrorism must be fought aggressively and the battle must be taken to them. The alternative is that we can sit back and respond to them initiating terroristic acts in what would be a never ending series of attacks on our homeland. We will not win this war by being responders.
Diplomacy with terrorists is completely out of the question and with that being the case the most effective philosophy in waging this battle against terrorism is by being the aggressor and taking the fight to them and that's exactly what we're doing.

[rascal]

So its ok for the US to attack another country because they may pose a future threat? A Pre-emp strike is ok if it is done by America? Come on now. Only an American who is brain washed by the propaganda of the American govt. would support that.

The whole worlds civilian population was and is against the Iraq invasion and against the US and to think you are right and everyone else in the world is wrong is dumb.

[xrayzebra]

That is your reply to justify when Americans kill innocent civilians but its just as wrong as what you bitch about when an American dies. To kill is wrong, period, as a Christian belief. But then maybe you don't believe in Christs teachings.


No dumbass. This is about the brutal killing of two AMERICAN servicemen.
But you like many, including Jim, want to bring our own Government into
the picture. No condemnation of the the people who did the killing.
Idiots like you only want to condemn our own servicemen. You are
a sick excuse of a human. I don't blame our servicemen for doing their
duty. Oh, by the way, did anyone hear. They did find WMD in Iraq, found
it over a year ago. Damn, how did that happen. It didn't exist. Huh, Jim.

Read the following it expresses my views pretty well.


Media coverage isn't serving up the truth

By Matt Towery

Jun 22, 2006

Coverage by national media of the two American servicemen tortured, murdered and mutilated in Iraq was revealing in itself.

This gruesome event overseas was reported here against a backdrop of debate on Capitol Hill about whether and when U.S. forces should withdraw from Iraq.

We are left to wonder what potentially dramatic impact this deliberate butchery might have had on Americans' opinion of the war effort had most newspapers across the nation chosen to make banner headlines of it.

Some did, as did a number of broadcast outlets. More typical, however, was the editorial decision at the nation's largest newspaper, USA Today. The full story of these atrocities could only be found deep into the first section of the daily edition.

Liberal media conspiracy?

I've addressed this idea many times. I've tried to explain that, in most instances, well-meaning editors and others in the news profession view stories differently than those in the American heartland.

As a result, they often have sincere if misguided reasons for what can appear to many of us as their head-in-the-sand indifference to stories that perhaps should be page-one material.

But it's important for news organizations to understand that this kind of editorial reasoning only feeds the widespread belief that a largely liberal Third Estate manages the news to fit their worldview, instead of reporting it to reflect the views of most readers.

This is too often done by giving top billing to comparatively insignificant stories.

In coverage of the Iraq war, American troops are not infrequently cast as the villains in any of various misdeeds a few may have committed. But when they are the victims of ghastly war crimes, it seems to warrant far less media focus.

This particular incident has the potential to galvanize the nation in support of its troops, if not of the Iraq war itself. In days past, the public's reaction to something like this would have been swift and certain. Unspeakable mutilation and desecration of young American servicemen would have brought out American flags, and would have become a rallying point for protests and demands for retribution. Undoubtedly, the end result would have been a big boost to support for America's war efforts.

But these are different times. The reaction to a story can only be as strong as the story itself, and how it is presented. It's hard to imagine that the nation can rally to instant indignation when many of its largest news sources choose to treat this story as just one of many in the course of the day. Just a few new killings -- that just happen to feature barbaric acts such as slicing organs and other body parts.

As one who polls and interprets polling, I find it important to remain dispassionate and nonpartisan in my views. This often causes Democrats to attack my columns when my conclusions appear to favor Republicans, and Republicans to take similar issue with me when the GOP's failures are judged harshly by public opinion.

But this is not a partisan issue. Anyone who believes this story deserves anything less than top billing in every newspaper and on every television broadcast is seriously out of touch. Not just out of touch with the feelings of the American people, but with the feelings of human beings everywhere.

As a nation of laws, our military has and continues to take appropriate action against U.S. soldiers who may be found, through proper legal proceedings, to have engaged in serious misconduct in Iraq. This is as it should be. But somehow we seem to write off the barbarity and lawlessness of enemy combatants with a dismissive shrug of our shoulders, as if such deeds were amoral acts of nature.

They are not.

I've often expressed my concern about the Iraq war. Its impact on our nation and its politics has been worrisome, at best.

But when I see such a horrific and revealing story largely brushed aside by media, my only proper response as a living, breathing human being is outrage. But also this: personal determination to support whatever course the president and Congress are taking.

Of course, as a pollster, my opinion doesn't count. But the American people's does. And I'm willing to bet that, because these mutilation murders of our soldiers weren't reported as they should have been, most Americans will go on with no opinion at all.

And that's a tragedy, too.

Matt Towery is a former National Republican legislator of the year (1993). Towery headed up former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s political organization and is the author of two books, Power Chicks: How Women Will Dominate America and Mean Business, the Insider’s Guide to Winning Any Political Election.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/matttowery/2006/06/22/202207.html

The above column pretty well describes the attitude of many on this
boards attitude toward the
butchering of two AMERICAN servicemen. No outrage, just that Bush
did it, and what about the conduct of our servicemen. To you I
say: Have a really nice day in your little world. I am absolutely
outraged with you.

[boutons_]

"A Pre-emp strike is ok if it is done by America"

dickhead's "one percent doctrine"

"The One Percent Doctrine." I wrote about it at some length already in yesterday's column . It takes its title from Vice President Cheney's assertion that if there's even a one percent threat of a "high-impact" terrorist event, then the government should respond as if it were a certainty. That assertion, Suskind writes, became an unspoken but momentous new guiding principle for the Bush administration's national security policy.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/20/BL2006062000682.html

[xrayzebra]

^^boutons, you are rambling again. Please go to the quite room and think about
what you want to say. I know things haven't been going well for you. But just
relax. Everything will be okay. Kerry is still in the Senate and Hillary is still trying.
And dan will let you play with his tinfoil.