Dead man walking...

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally posted by MRM
On-Ramp, I can say unequivocally that you are wrong.

It is 3,000 dead US service members.

You beat me to it. Yes, it's 3,000. Plus many more permanently injured, crippled or disabled. And that's just the U.S. numbers.

[Jim Bremner]

hey guy's don't forget the gassing of the kurd's

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The time to intervene on the Kurds' behalf as part of any "humanitarian effort" was almost 20 years ago. . . Although there's no statute of limitations on murder (and there shouldn't be) it's pretty obvious that we gave even less of a damn about the Kurds then as we do about the Sudanese today. To attempt to sell the actions of today under the label of "humanitarian effort because of atrocities against the Kurds" is simply transparent lies.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by on-ramp
in all honesty, folks, are we sure we're hanging the right man?

While I don't like endorsing government power manifested in the government run courts, I'd not shed a tear if it was a double execution.

Two of a kind.

[DavidI]

Originally posted by Superman
Dubya gets pinned, Island. Saddam's murders are not on his hands, but he does have responsibility for a decision that is widely criticized and some strategic and tactical ineptitude that many consider to be inexcusable. That's the question raised by the thread-starter. Back to that. Focus.

I don't think it was worth it. We've made a big splash in Iraq. Enough to cement our reputation as a violent, interfering nation with imperial interests. Just exactly why they hate us in the first place. For exporting Western values (or lack thereof) and capitalism. Disguised as "democracy."

Then again, one of the victories here will be the death of the guy who tried to assasinate Dubya's dad. That and the longshot chance to be considered a genius in the history books, is what Dubya's decisions was all about. He'll achieve the revenge part this week. The genius part......well.......I think thousands of American lives have been gambled on a big loser. I think history will use Dubya as an example of the worst kind of bonehead decision-maker. The most wrong-headed president in our nation's history.

Back to you......

Superman, that was exceptionally stated! I agree 100%

David

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by on-ramp
war feeds the rich (ie. slimy oil CEOs, aka. Cheney), while it buries the poor.
[/B]

LOL, good one Axl.

What we've got here, is a failure to communicate.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by Superman
Dubya gets pinned, Island. Saddam's murders are not on his hands, but he does have responsibility for a decision that is widely criticized and some strategic and tactical ineptitude that many consider to be inexcusable. That's the question raised by the thread-starter. Back to that. Focus.

I don't think it was worth it. We've made a big splash in Iraq. Enough to cement our reputation as a violent, interfering nation with imperial interests. Just exactly why they hate us in the first place. For exporting Western values (or lack thereof) and capitalism. Disguised as "democracy."

Then again, one of the victories here will be the death of the guy who tried to assasinate Dubya's dad. That and the longshot chance to be considered a genius in the history books, is what Dubya's decisions was all about. He'll achieve the revenge part this week. The genius part......well.......I think thousands of American lives have been gambled on a big loser. I think history will use Dubya as an example of the worst kind of bonehead decision-maker. The most wrong-headed president in our nation's history.

Back to you......

Originally posted by DavidI
Superman, that was exceptionally stated! I agree 100%

David

I only agree 80%.

Lyndon Johnson was a much bigger moron who killed about 12x as many American boys while also simultaneously ripping at the very fabric of US society.

Bush is an idiot, but c'mon, in the grand scheme of things, 100 years from now, Iraq will be a mere historical footnote, and compared to Johnson, Bush is a minor league moron. Iraq isn't even "really" Bushes fault because he took very bad advice from a lot of people he thought he could trust, including a lot of these 'vaunted' foriegn leaders. What is Bush's fault was that he not only listened to them, but listened to them for SOOOOOO long.

We all seem to want to forget that 27 nations were wrong about Iraq, including virtually every respected intel agency on Earth. Saddam WANTED Iran to think he had WMD. Like dupes, we bought his lie hook, line, and sinker. A lie that was never really even directed at us to begin with. Saddam for his part is also at least as stoopid because even on the eve of war he outright dismissed the possibility that the US REALLY WAS coming to get him this time. Only as US forces finally closed in on the outskirts of Baghdad did he fully understand just how mistaken he was too.(source Cobra II)

I think the bottom line here is that everyone was wrong about everything.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
The time to intervene on the Kurds' behalf as part of any "humanitarian effort" was almost 20 years ago. . . Although there's no statute of limitations on murder (and there shouldn't be) it's pretty obvious that we gave even less of a damn about the Kurds then as we do about the Sudanese today. To attempt to sell the actions of today under the label of "humanitarian effort because of atrocities against the Kurds" is simply transparent lies.

There should never be an expiration date for justice.

Saddam was a murdering bastard. His being gone is one of the very few worthwhile things to come of the whole sordid affair.

"War is not nice"
~Nancy Reagan

[fastpat]

Originally posted by m21sniper
We all seem to want to forget that 27 nations were wrong about Iraq, including virtually every respected intel agency on Earth.

That's not accurate. Those nation's agreement was bought and paid for by the US government, so you'd want to say that Bush had 27 supporting nations, the best tax money could buy.

[MRM]

I think Sniper meant that 27 nations, including the world's intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had WMD, not that 27 nations participated in the invasion.

For my money, GWB is the Republican Lyndon Johnson and Rumsfeld is the 21st century's McNamara.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by MRM
I think Sniper meant that 27 nations, including the world's intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had WMD, not that 27 nations participated in the invasion.

For my money, GWB is the Republican Lyndon Johnson and Rumsfeld is the 21st century's McNamara.

I'd go for a combination of Lyndon Johnson and Woodrow Wilson. That's based on Bush's campaign promise that there would be no nation building during his administration, all the while planning to do just that in Iraq long before the 9/11/2001 criminal attacks. I think your assessment of Rumsfeld is pretty accurate, with an additional comment that Rumsfeld is about as soulless as they come, perhaps a sociopathic personality. Bush has traits of the sociopath as well.

[Jim Bremner]

and Pat, just what traits do you have?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Saddam WAS a murdering bastard, no doubt and it'll be satisfying I'm sure to see his lifeless body swinging from a rope. However, his actions do not even remotely justify what has happened. 3,000 U.S. troops dead (this time), countless billions of dollars wasted, U.S. international credibility permanently destroyed, tens of thousands of people displaced or families destroyed or loved ones killed, etc. etc. etc. There was absolutely no move to charge Hussein for war crimes or arrest him under international law for his crimes either at the end of Gulf War I or before bombs started falling during our neither-shocking-nor-awesome "shock-and-awe" campaign. This was convenient after-the-fact rationalization B.S. on the part of a desperate and scrambling-for-reasons adminstration here in Washing-toon to attempt to defend an increasingly unpopular war against an increasingly dissatisfied American populace.

There are two major tragedies in this: (1) that the "justice" the Kurds are getting is only done so as a side-benefit of trying to salvage a political sinking ship on the part of the Bush administration and that (2) juuuuuuuust enough of the American public was stupid enough (and perhaps the Democrats were even stupider) to give our current Imbicile-in-Chief the benefit of the doubt for four more years. Fortunately most people came to their senses eventually and it showed in the recent Congressional elections, but it could have been much sooner and the efforts to mend the nation and what's left of our shattered credibility as a nation could have begun that much sooner. That's really unfortunate.

It's kind of aprospro that Gerald Ford died this past week. He's probably the last U.S. president I'd consider to be a true "uniter". Every single president since has done nothing to unite the ever-growing partisan divide or has pried it even wider through reckless pursuits of "ramrodding" partisan political agendas down the throats of the other side. If there was ever a time this nation needed someone who could try to glue the broken pieces of this nation back together like he tried to do, it's now.

I look with fear and trepidation towards 2008. At a time when we really need healing and unity, we'll end up with another divisive goddamned circus of Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush or something. Maybe it's time for a little revolution or civil war in THIS country, seeing as the politicans have become so adept at failing us so regularly. . .

Rant out.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by fastpat
That's not accurate. Those nation's agreement was bought and paid for by the US government, so you'd want to say that Bush had 27 supporting nations, the best tax money could buy.

I was talking about those nations intel agencies, therefore based on that your comment is simply not true based on all the reading i've done.

Even the agency formerly known as the KGB said Saddam had unaccounted for chems. Those same UN documented chems are still unnaccounted for. They are probably in Syria. These particular chems were known to exist according to the UN, and their final dispensation is still unknown, at least publicly. The king of Bahrain told Franks straight out "Saddam has the Biologicals", and admits to saying it.

Saddam in his efforts to deceive his arch-enemy Iran also fooled the rest of us. Then the law of unintended consequences raped his ass real good, because i am sure that he did not intend his deception campaign to be so effective it got him hanged by the neck until dead.

[dd74]

Well - no matter what side of the fence one is on, 4.5 hrs. from now, the man is supposed to swing. I'll be watching CNN...

[gassy]

"but c'mon, in the grand scheme of things, 100 years from now, Iraq will be a mere historical footnote,"

Bet that makes the 3000+ families feel much better.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by gassy
"but c'mon, in the grand scheme of things, 100 years from now, Iraq will be a mere historical footnote,"

Bet that makes the 3000+ families feel much better.

Keep in mind that when you speak of a family in Iraq, you're talking about the whole family, which may be as many as 30,000 people, or more.

[gassy]

Keep in mind that when you speak of a family in Iraq, you're talking about the whole family, which may be as many as 30,000 people, or more."

Pat, I was referring to the 3000+ U.S. casualties that left behind loved ones ...brothers, sisters, moms, dads, aunts, uncles.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

They're saying on CNN it happened 10 minutes ago.

[Noah930]

Well, it's done now.