Another Terrible Milestone

yustr · 06-15-2006, 12:40 PM

The official US death toll in Iraq now tops 2500. That's 2500 sons, daughters, fathers and mothers dead. And many thousands more scarred physically and mentally.

Story HERE

Note: the yahoo.new story has one glaring error; it says

Quote:

which began in March 2003 with a U.S.-led invasion to topple President Saddam Hussein

but that was not the reason for the war. The Congressonal Resolution (after numerous long since disproved "Whereas'") said this:

Quote:

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Removing Saddam is not listed. I'm pretty sure removing a standing Government is against international law.

newhouse1390 · 06-15-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

The official US death toll in Iraq now tops 2500. That's 2500 sons, daughters, fathers and mothers dead. And many thousands more scarred physically and mentally.

This is not a milestone. It is only a milestone to our enemy. What makes the 2500th death any more important than the 2257 or 2467? This is not a news story and definitely not a milestone.

I am not sure that yahoo speaks for the president, this administration, or the country. The authorization for the use of force could not be better written above.

Quote:

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I can't think of a better way to say it. Perfect! We went in to defend the National Security of our country and if that meant toppling the regime so be it. If it was in our best security of our nation to remove that regime from power then it is still in accordance with that bill. (I think we all agree we are safer with Saddam gone) If what we did was against international law then every senator that voted in support of that bill need to be arrested at once.

yustr · 06-15-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhouse1390

This is not a milestone. It is only a milestone to our enemy. What makes the 2500th death any more important than the 2257 or 2467? This is not a news story and definitely not a milestone.

A milestone in the literal sense is a way to measure from where you started. In this case its symbolic of a failed policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhouse1390

(I think we all agree we are safer with Saddam gone)

I, for one, do not. Saddam was not a threat to me or you or anyone else outside of Iraq. I'll remind you that contrary to the BS we heard from Bush, Saddam did not have WMD. He did not have a nuclear program. He did not have the ability to threaten his neighbors let alone the US or Europe. He was a neutered dictator of a crippled country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhouse1390

If what we did was against international law then every senator that voted in support of that bill need to be arrested at once.

Good point. I was focused only on the President.

newhouse1390 · 06-15-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

I, for one, do not. Saddam was not a threat to me or you or anyone else outside of Iraq. I'll remind you that contrary to the BS we heard from Bush, Saddam did not have WMD. He did not have a nuclear program. He did not have the ability to threaten his neighbors let alone the US or Europe. He was a neutered dictator of a crippled country.

Iraq was a threat, but more important, it was an opportunity. “A pre-emptive invasion of a country gives one pause, there is another massive benefit to this war. Done right, an invasion would be the single best path to reform the Arab world. The roots of Islamic terror reside in the dysfunctional politics of the region, where failure and repression have produced fundamentalism and violence. Were Saddam’s totalitarian regime to be replaced by a state that respected human rights, enforced the rule of law and created a market economy, it could begin to transform that world. I still believe that.

So, no, I have no regrets that we toppled Saddam Hussein. We took out a threat to the free world. Saddam was well on his way to obtaining WMD's. We saw this opportunity and ran with it and we and the rest of the world is better off for it. Not acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was a threat is pure arrogance on your part.

newhouse1390 · 06-15-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Good point. I was focused only on the President.

The reason no one is being arrested is because what happened was not against international law. It was in accordance with the Bill that was written by the US Congress. No one was complaining then in fact they were more or less advocating it...

Quote:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

Need I go on?

**40sondacurb** · 06-15-2006, 08:25 PM

Congratulations on reaching 1/2k newhouse.

newhouse1390 · 06-15-2006, 09:01 PM

Thanks, I have had a great time getting there.

**40sondacurb** · 06-15-2006, 10:07 PM

Awww man, look at the thread title "Another Terrible Milestone"

Irony.

yustr · 06-15-2006, 10:15 PM

Congrats on 500. Good work.

Now let's talk about #504...

Back in the 1300's you could find millions of people who believed the sun revolved around the earth. That was the learned and popular opinion based on the reference points available at the time. But we know that the millions were wrong.

Listing any number of learned individuals who thought Saddam had WMD does not alter the fact that he did not have them. Belief does not equate to fact. Now add the fact that opinions of intellegence officers that was contrary to what the neo-cons wanted to hear was systematically suppressed and they was only one possible position - that of Bush.

The example I use is this: pick a number from the set: 6, 7. 8. There's at least a 33% chance you'll pick 7. That's good because that's the number I want you to pick. And, I don't really mind if you pick 6 or 8 either. Now based on your argument, because 100% of those asked picked 6,7 or 8, those are the only true answers.

Except the true set was: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10. But I couldn't show you this because you are more likely to pick a number other than 6, 7, or 8 - which I don't want.

If wishes were horses even beggars could ride.

And I take back my agreement about the Senators who supported the resolution. It never says Bush is allowed to over throw the government of Iraq. He was allowed only to defend the security of the US - which I already stated was not in jepardy. And he was authorized to enforce the resolutions of the UN - none of which say Saddam must be removed.

~~whodat~~ · 06-16-2006, 05:47 AM

so if saddammy hammy were to be left in power, where would the middle east be now?

my only regret is that a 500 lb. bomb didnt give him a colostomy like his cohort just experienced.

i hope one of those drone babies has osama bin with a big "X marks the spot" on his head.

~~drbillchristian~~ · 06-16-2006, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Back in the 1300's you could find millions of people who believed the sun revolved around the earth. That was the learned and popular opinion based on the reference points available at the time. But we know that the millions were wrong.

Not only was this belief part of common wisdom, the catholic church was heavily invested in this "truth". When (I believe it was) Galileo that proved the truth to be otherwise (I think) he was forced to recant, on penalty of death.

It's a good parallel, because this was how the President and his Administration got the CIA to justify the invasion of Iraq. People just "sort of believed" that Hussein was either after or had already acquired WMD. And as stupid and as self-centered as most Americans are, it has probably never occured to most of us that creating the notion of the possible existance of WMD was part of Iraq's national defence strategy against (among others) IRAN, who now we ALSO suspect of intending to acquire WMD.

I find it interesting that advocates of the Party of Personal Responsibility post long lists of people that believed and repeated the LIE while refusing to acknowledge exactly who it was that created and perpetuated the lie to begin with.

I guess this notion of Personal Responsibility only applies to people that either have no power, are Democrats, or both. I think that posted list should have been titled "A List of People that didn't Suspect the Extent to which George Bush would go in order to Create a Pretext for the Invasion of Iraq".

Personally, I wish the Republicans would consider modifying their platform to becoming the Party of Presidential Responsibility. Having a Responsible President would be a good thing. But it seems all these Responsible Republicans can do is go around waving their pointy-finger at everyone they can think of and trying to blame Someone Else for Just About Everything. If it's not Invisible Terrorists it's Invisible Liberals, or it's The Poor, The Irresponsible or whoever else it might be convenient for them to wear the label "The Enemy".

Yet, as they are so fond of reminding us, they are the Party that has the Power at this point. And while they are so happy to underline this point to whoever may be disatisfied with this fact at every opportunity, somehow the full realization of the natural consequences of their "victory" perpetually manages to evade their acceptance of responsibility for a long list of political deficits.

The 2,500 hundred mark IS a "milestone". There's a dead-body counter and it ratchets a little further each and every day. Thus far it's been Two Thousand and Five Hundred Dead American Patriots since George Bush lied us into the Invasion of Iraq, and I wonder how many more dead bodies will be acquired on the counter before the Republicans admit this fact to the American People.

~~whodat~~ · 06-16-2006, 07:07 AM

Iran should be next
Syria in the waiting

sooner or later, you know its coming, the equipment and military are there now
Iran will threaten Isreal, do something idiotic, and we will have to intercede.

i would like to ask the liberals here--
actually we should post a poll:

how many friends or family did you lose in 9/11?

how many friends or family were lost in the Middle East?

bry623 · 06-16-2006, 07:08 AM

Everyone believed WMD's existed.

The 43rd president is 1000 times more personally responisble than the 42nd. That's probably because of his acceptance of Christ as his saviour.

~~drbillchristian~~ · 06-16-2006, 08:15 AM

Quote:

i would like to ask the liberals here--
actually we should post a poll:

how many friends or family did you lose in 9/11?

how many friends or family were lost in the Middle East?

This sounds rather odd. Why would you want to do that ?

Maybe a better poll would be "Are you, or have you ever been, a Liberal?" and, "Is anyone close to you (friends & family), or have you known them to ever be, a Liberal."

Reason why I make this point is because anyone that disagrees with these reactionary conservatives (that are moving quickly towards fascism) is immediately and publically castigated as a Liberal.

Quick Take: A 1950's Communist is now a post-millenium "Liberal".

bry623 · 06-16-2006, 08:20 AM

Another typical anti-republican rant. It's predictable and stale.

yustr · 06-16-2006, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whosdat

Iran should be next
Syria in the waiting

sooner or later, you know its coming, the equipment and military are there now
Iran will threaten Isreal, do something idiotic, and we will have to intercede.

i would like to ask the liberals here--
actually we should post a poll:

how many friends or family did you lose in 9/11?

Irrelevant! No, I take that back. While it's not relevant if I knew anyone who died on 9-11, it does point out the failure of focus of this administration. How many 9-11 terrorists or conspirators have been brought to justice? None would be a good first guess!

how many friends or family were lost in the Middle East?

Zero, but again its irrelevant - a direct connection to someone killed in this fiasco would make me more opposed not less.

And tieing it back to your opening about Iran and Syria; I do have a teenage son and I absolutely do not want him to die because of these idiots.

Bush is relying on Lenin's admonishion "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And you and, now only, 30% of Americans have fallen for it. Please try to see through the fog of propaganda. Iraq and 9-11 had nothing to do with each other.

bry623 · 06-16-2006, 08:25 AM

Iraq was in direct opposition to the Bush Doctrine.

yustr · 06-16-2006, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bry623

Everyone believed WMD's existed.

Bull. There were plenty of opposing views including the weapons inspectors who were actually looking for them (as opposed to the CIA which was looking for reasons to justify an invasion) but these opposing views were deliberately and systematically ignored.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bry623

The 43rd president is 1000 times more personally responisble than the 42nd. That's probably because of his acceptance of Christ as his saviour.

bry623 · 06-16-2006, 08:53 AM

Edit: Enough people believed it to autorize use of force.

~~drbillchristian~~ · 06-16-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Enough people believed it to autorize use of force.

Yes, but did Jesus Christ (George Bush's personal Christ and Saviour) "autorize" the use of force ?

06-15-2006, 08:25 PM	#6 (permalink)
40sondacurb Don't be a menace Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,285 OS: Vista sp2	Congratulations on reaching 1/2k newhouse. __________________ Donate to keep the forum running

06-15-2006, 09:01 PM	#7 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,040 OS: Windows Server 2003	Thanks, I have had a great time getting there. __________________ Because you can read this thank a teacher, because it's English thank a soldier.

06-15-2006, 10:07 PM	#8 (permalink)
40sondacurb Don't be a menace Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,285 OS: Vista sp2	Awww man, look at the thread title "Another Terrible Milestone" Irony. __________________ Donate to keep the forum running Last edited by 40sondacurb; 06-15-2006 at 10:08 PM.

06-15-2006, 10:15 PM	#9 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore Posts: 6,050 OS: XP Pro My System	Congrats on 500. Good work. Now let's talk about #504... Back in the 1300's you could find millions of people who believed the sun revolved around the earth. That was the learned and popular opinion based on the reference points available at the time. But we know that the millions were wrong. Listing any number of learned individuals who thought Saddam had WMD does not alter the fact that he did not have them. Belief does not equate to fact. Now add the fact that opinions of intellegence officers that was contrary to what the neo-cons wanted to hear was systematically suppressed and they was only one possible position - that of Bush. The example I use is this: pick a number from the set: 6, 7. 8. There's at least a 33% chance you'll pick 7. That's good because that's the number I want you to pick. And, I don't really mind if you pick 6 or 8 either. Now based on your argument, because 100% of those asked picked 6,7 or 8, those are the only true answers. Except the true set was: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10. But I couldn't show you this because you are more likely to pick a number other than 6, 7, or 8 - which I don't want. If wishes were horses even beggars could ride. And I take back my agreement about the Senators who supported the resolution. It never says Bush is allowed to over throw the government of Iraq. He was allowed only to defend the security of the US - which I already stated was not in jepardy. And he was authorized to enforce the resolutions of the UN - none of which say Saddam must be removed. __________________ If there are lawyers or politicians involved, logic may be a very poor tool for reaching a conclusion.

06-16-2006, 07:08 AM	#13 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 11,692 OS: winxp pro sp2	Everyone believed WMD's existed. The 43rd president is 1000 times more personally responisble than the 42nd. That's probably because of his acceptance of Christ as his saviour. __________________ "If you aren't a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative when you are 50, you have no brain"

06-16-2006, 05:47 AM	#10 (permalink)
~~whodat~~ Register user Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,931 OS: XP	so if saddammy hammy were to be left in power, where would the middle east be now? my only regret is that a 500 lb. bomb didnt give him a colostomy like his cohort just experienced. i hope one of those drone babies has osama bin with a big "X marks the spot" on his head.

06-16-2006, 07:07 AM	#12 (permalink)
~~whodat~~ Register user Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,931 OS: XP	Iran should be next Syria in the waiting sooner or later, you know its coming, the equipment and military are there now Iran will threaten Isreal, do something idiotic, and we will have to intercede. i would like to ask the liberals here-- actually we should post a poll: how many friends or family did you lose in 9/11? how many friends or family were lost in the Middle East?

06-16-2006, 08:20 AM	#15 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 11,692 OS: winxp pro sp2	Another typical anti-republican rant. It's predictable and stale. __________________ "If you aren't a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative when you are 50, you have no brain"

06-16-2006, 08:25 AM	#17 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 11,692 OS: winxp pro sp2	Iraq was in direct opposition to the Bush Doctrine. __________________ "If you aren't a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative when you are 50, you have no brain"

06-16-2006, 08:53 AM	#19 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 11,692 OS: winxp pro sp2	Edit: Enough people believed it to autorize use of force. __________________ "If you aren't a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative when you are 50, you have no brain"