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 either get a stomach for it.. and realize it's painful... or get ready to become poor and lose your way of life.... sheesh....
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.
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.
That is your reply to justify when Americans kill innocent civilians but its just as wrong as what you about when an American dies. To kill is wrong, period, as a Christian belief. But then maybe you don't believe in Christs teachings.
Jim, you posted the article in the Political Forum and led 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.
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.
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/colu...22/202207.html
The above column pretty well describes the at ude of many on this
boards at ude 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.
"A Pre-emp strike is ok if it is done by America"
head's "one percent doctrine"
"The One Percent Doctrine." I wrote about it at some length already in yesterday's column . It takes its le 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...062000682.html
^^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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
