Bush admits revelations from God!! !!

Post Reply New Topic

But it is the troops who are killing Iraqis. You just can't have it both ways. They are given orders, but don't have to follow them. They didn't even have to join the military.

We are not the only ones killing Iraqis even the terrorist are too. And tell the Iraqis stand up against even these terrorist that operate in Iraq the killing will continue.

That is a good picture of Bush. Lets stay the course.

You'd might as well blame a gun for shooting someone instead of the person pulling the trigger. The responsibility for the military's actions rests with the Bush administration, since they are the ones making decisions. The troops aren't paid to ask questions, they're paid to follow whatever orders they're given.

That argument didn't hold up too well in Nuremburg. A gun is an inanimate object with no will of its own. That is not true of a soldier. They are not robots.

By the way, Bush is serving in his second term, just in case you don't think that he has the support of most of the American people.

Here in generally Democratic New Jersey, there is a Governor's race between Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine and Republican candidate Doug Forrester. While Corzine had been holding a steady lead in the polls, his numbers began to slip. When that happened, his campaign began a series of ads comparing Forrester to Bush. Forrester started to do even better.

In the November 8,2004 issue of Newsweek, Henry Kissinger published an essay entitled "America's Assignment." In it, he outlined, among other points, critical of all sides, how European nations like France and Germany fail to understand the nature of modern terrorism because they cling to the notions developed by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The presumptions of that treaty are of nations with inviolate borders where enemy combatants have national allegiances and a soveriginity to protect. This is no longer the case, and, therefore, the standards by which military action can be judged have become completely different.

Dr. Kissinger is respected as an expert in foreign affairs almost universally, by people of all political stripe, around the world.

You might want to inform yourself of his very cogent viewpoints on this matter.

Or, you can continue to say trite things like "guns don't kill people" and launch ad hominem attacks on elected officials.

It's up to you.

If they would have taken Saddam Hussein out in 1991 this world would have better off. There would not be a Al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden to deal with in 2005 and beyond.

ghotistix

You are right that it is the Bush administration that is making the decisions to go in to Iraq.
Though it is the generals in Iraq that make the daily decisions what to do.

Litguy

You are right that the soldiers are not robots, they are human.
But soldiers are to follow any lawful orders given to them.

What about all the civillians that have died under US bombing? Do they not count? Every side of any war tends to target civillians unfortunately as they are easier targets than military ones and it is used by the Americans as well as Bin Laden's mob. The tragedy in New York was miniscule compared to the deaths cause by the US in Iraq and in many places that have been bombed by the US in the "third" world. Millions of innocents have died in the last century due to American and British actions. The US and the British have done many actions that have resulted in lots of deaths in the "muslim world" and helped Saddam Hussein and gave him wmd, they are responsible for millions of deaths in the region and we gets a tiny amount of the suffering those in Iraq etc and suddenly the human cost of war gets mentioned. We seem to only care about "western" lives.

Every time a nation gets in a hard fought war atrocities occur and the allies have targeted civillians lots of times in the past. Like i say every army is full of "terrorists" when they are ordered to or allowed to kill. Backing out of the Iraq war now would be a silly move i think but i dislike the holier than thou attitude displayed by some in a country that has a blase attitude towards civillian lives. Read up some history and you will find the US and the "coalition" have been behind or played a part in a lot more deaths in muslim countries than 9/11. They have backed corrupt murderous regimes in Africa and the Middle-East to plunder the resources of these countries, millions are dying due to extreme capatilism.

Most of the 9/11 bombers where Saudi Arabian and that is where most of the money and teachings of the wahabe strain of Islam and terrorist groups come from but there is too much money and oil tied up with Bush and co from the Sadi oil barons for that country to be invaded likely and it would devestate the US economy if the Saudis pulled out their investments in the US. Why where Bin Laden's family wisked away out of the US without questioning after 9/11. Could it be because they had a lot of money tied up with Bush and his oil cronies? The Iraq war on the other hand has it's financial benefits like oil to gain for Bush's friends in government and big business like the arms trade and construction trades. There is a lot of money getting 'lost' in these places as war is a good cover-up. The actions commited by corrupt westerners in the past has partly caused the problem with Jahid'ists and Bush is making the problem worse. I would stop immigration or visits from the countries with high 'terrorist' links but that is bad for business and would lose the fat-cat backing that Bush relies on.

Lawful being the key. Since other posters are calling the actions of the soldiers terrorism, they are accusing them of unlawful actions.

I'm not sure where to start in answering this barrage, so let me start with agreeing with one point.

It is absolutely true that the United States has been guilty of backing oppressive regimes in so-called third world countries. The real epicenter of this would be during the Eisenhower presidency, over fifty years ago, but much of it has happened since through admdinistrations of both parties.

On the other hand, I would raise the following six points.

1) With whom was the United States engaged in war on September 11, 2001? The 3,000 innocent civilians were not collateral damage in some otherwise military campaign. They were the direct target of an attack by international criminals.

2) You are continuing to reflect a model of what warfare is that is outmoded by current reality. Again, I would urge you to drop by a library, pick up the November 8, 2004 edition of Newsweek, and read Dr. Kissinger's very well balanced and very insightful piece. It should raise questions in your own mind about some of the assumptions you are drawing.

3) Please don't accuse me of not knowing history when your entire statement is undocumented.

4) I have seen no compelling evidence that American forces have deliberately targeted civilian targets under the Bush administration. On the other hand, they did just that under the Clinton administration. The attack on the World Trade Center was a completely unprovoked attack targeted at uninvolved civilians. What some people call "asymmetrical combat" is simply a euphemism for terrorism.

5) Yes, I can understand the anger of the Muslim world. This nation has supported one side in the mid-East without any exception, regardless of where culpability may have lain for individual actions. That is no justification for what happened four years ago.

6) Your statements about the Saudis, again, are pretty undocumented. Yes, Osama Bin Laden and most of the terrorists on 9/11 are Saudis. That does not implicate Saudi Arabia as a nation in supporing terrorism, necessarily. Again, you need to understand the new nature of warfare, the world no longer being made up of combatants with nations and systems to protect, but rather, far too often, extreme fundamentalist religious views. ON the other hand, that Afghanistan and Iraq have harbored the training of terrorists can be documented and was under the last three Presidential administrations.

Early in the year There was aneditorial in a Newspaper, (I think the Karachi Post, but can't find it now). The jist of it was that the West is fooling itself if it thinks it can dictate democracy. The reasons given were not religious fundamentalism, envy, ignorance or, or any of the other reasons spouted by the media. The main thrust was that until the west stops supporting the really disgusting dictatorships (Saudi Arabia and Azerbaidzhan are the only ones I can remember, but there were many), and starts to consider people as having equal value then it will be considered hypocritical and only out to further its own ends. From my reading of the media in the East/Middle East, what they want is peace, democracy, security, a fairer society, etc. They do not see the long history of Western imposed government as supplying those things. Unconditional support for Israel doesn't help either.
Judging troops in a hostile environment is usually something I recommend against. It's easy when you sit at home to forget how paranoid you can get when the people smiling at you are as also the people who snipe at you and bomb you. At 18 I was sent to Belfast to keep the christian factions there apart, both sides petrol bombed, stoned and shot at me, the republicans tended to be more honest about it. Keeping perspective is almost impossible and the prejudices you take in with you tend to dictate your response, at least until you have time to sit down and think. The way troops are being told and encouraged to do one thing, when we are told official policy is different, either shows an unforgivable comunication breakdown, or, some very shady people at the top. I know which I'd bet on.

Barely related to the topic, but meh
Go to www.google.com and then type in FAILURE and click I FEEL LUCKY

Litguy, by undocumented you mean by your right wing preferences in the western media? What i have said is well documented in the Middle East. First you admit that the Clinton administration has targeted civillians and then you say there is no justification for 9/11. It wasnt right but in war terms there was some justification. Bin Laden doesnt have the army that the US has so it makes no sense to engage in open combat.

Might doesnt always necessarily equal right. The best thing the US could have done for peace in the region is stay out of conflicts there and work towards and encourage financial and political stability for the whole world instead of trying to grab a piece of the action everwhere and along with Britain selling weapons to dictatorships.

BTW i refuse to believe the amount of civillian casulties in Afghanistan and Iraq was neccessary. When you drop bombs (particularly cluster bombs) all over the place with far too little descrimination you must know that casulties several times the size of 9/11 will occur. Bush and the American administration talk in simple terms of complicated problems and act self-righteous when they have no good reason to and so do their army leaders with little regard for the civilian deaths they cause. There where no suicide bombings in Iraq until the US invaded it illegally so i think they are combatants the same as the US soldiers.

Reading Newsweek is having right wing preferences? Wow.

I didn't think I was, but if not seeing Osama Bin Laden as a patriot fighting a noble war against an evil foe makes me a right winger, I guess I'll have to be by your standards.

How does Clinton's dropping bombs on Iraq justify 9/l11 if Saudi Arabia is the seat of the problem? Just wondering.

Last edited by Litguy on 13 Oct 2005, 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unfortunately, in the modern world, petroleum has a lot to do with financial stability.

I fully agree with you that it is a mistake to side with one dictator over another, and that the US has been guilty of just that. As I pointed out above, however, this has been going on for decades. Really, since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I when Iraq was created as an artificial state by Western Europe.

Here, I would agree that you make valid points. I even agree that the "insurgents" in Iraq are simply defending their state. I'm not certain what you base your knowledge of cluster bombs and the conditions of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq on, however. Your "[refusal] to believe" does not prove a point one way or the other. Do you think the American military consists of bloodthirsty ghouls who decided it would be fun to wipe out a bunch of civilians? Is there any level on which that makes sense?

Come on now litguy i never quite put it like that just that things arent as black and white as Bush would have us believe up on his soapbox. As far as your question goes muslim peoples do stick together to readily and that is something they need to adress to if equality for all is to be acheived.