Iraq A Stain On The America Of Old

[Navy1960]

THe LAST SIX SECONDS!

Two years ago when I was the Commander of all U.S. and Iraqi forces, in fact, the 22nd of April 2008, two Marine infantry battalions, 1/9 “The Walking Dead,” and 2/8 were switching out in Ramadi. One battalion in the closing days of their deployment going home very soon, the other just starting its seven-month combat tour. Two Marines, Corporal Jonathan Yale and Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter, 22 and 20 years old respectively, one from each battalion, were assuming the watch together at the entrance gate of an outpost that contained a makeshift barracks housing 50 Marines. The same broken down ramshackle building was also home to 100 Iraqi police, also my men and our allies in the fight against the terrorists in Ramadi, a city until recently the most dangerous city on earth and owned by Al Qaeda.
The last six seconds… | Be John Galt


When people think of Iraq, think of ALL the young men and women who gave so much there, some their lives, some injuries that last a lifetime, families that will never be the same, and when you do, think of them "fondly" regardless of your feelings on why they were there. These young people are the best of us all, and they fought and still fight a war that did NOT require a sacrifice from the American people only themselves and their families. Perhaps when we think of it those terms we can begin to understand that these young people who went to Iraq some never to come home, did so because they wished to serve their nation and in so doing served us all.

 

[kiwiman127]

Man,,all this partisan bickering just doesn't stop.

It appears that Iraq is going to a total governed by a Shiite leadership. There are token Sunni in the Iraqi government, but that's what the Sunni representatives are,,,token.
That being in the case and in conjunction with recent history, Iraq and Iran are going to end up being allies.
So, we sink in 100's of billions of dollars bettering their economical environment, military, infrastructure and leave to the Iraqi tons of technology and equipment and they will turn their backs on the US.
This scenario was predicted way back to 2005 after Iran help set up Iraq's banking system.
Oh and by the way, the insurgency in Iraq was predicted and was as a main reason George HW didn't invade Iraq and dispose of Saddam after Gulf War I. So one would have to accept the fact that an Iraq-Iran relationship possibility had to something considered by US foreign experts within the government/including "The Hill"..
It was assume, based on the population advantage the Shiite's had that they would assume leadership of the Iraqi government. Iran is a Shiite driven country also, the rest of the Arab World is dominated by Sunni. An Iraq-Iran alliance is a natural.
The event of an Iraqi-Iran relationship will prove to be a stain on America.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

America's troops were unnecessarily burdened with what amounts to a war crime.

You hyperbolic lefties have done to the term "war crimes" what you do to so many terms that used to mean something: over use them and misapply them until them become empty slogans devoid of real meaning.

You know something..........you're another "Joe the Plumber." Go to the polls and vote against your own interests. Keep on thumpin' that bible.

And you're just another imbecilic, intolerant leftist... why the reference to the Bible? Who mentioned a Bible? Joe the plumber?

Unhinged much?

 

[Contumacious]

War crime????

Yep.

Yes, Bush was the president at the time we went to war, but he got approval and backing from the majority of Democrats too....

Bullshit.

The new Pentagon papers

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

By Col Karen Kwiatkowski, USAF

.

 

[High_Gravity]

Why did the invasion of Iraq surprise any of you?

We have been invading countries on a whim pretty much constantly for the past 70 years. Any guesses on which country we'll invade next?

Brazil.

 

[Unkotare]

It's not hyperbolic..

Of course it is, you partisan shit. Do we have to go through all the agreements and resolutions Iraq was in violation of? Do we have to go over Saddam's support of terrorism and instability in a region of the world where grave threats had sprung? Then you'll say every one of the great many violations and instigations wasn't good enough reason and squeal about "Lies!" you can never prove and basically reiterate your partisan position over and over. Save everyone the time - you were opposed to the war and that is your subjective position. You can say so without the silly, empty hyperbole and insupportable charges.

Violation of what? .

Many, many UN resolutions and terms he agreed upon to end the first Gulf War. Forgot already?

 

[Unkotare]

War crime????

Yep.

Yes, Bush was the president at the time we went to war, but he got approval and backing from the majority of Democrats too....

Bullshit.

No, fact.

 

[healthmyths]

The president, ambassador and generals who spoke put up the best appearance possible for the withdrawal of our warriors who were remaining there. This enormous fiasco was started by George W. Bush because he really never had gotten over Saddam Hussein trying to assassinate his father in 1993. The war of choice was funded through emergency spending measures and didn't even show up as budget deficits until Obama declared the tricks were over. The war expenses began to show up as part of the deficit in fy 2010.

Over 1 million of America's young served in that shithole. about 4400 were killed there. About 33,000 were seriously wounded....some triple amputees. Those who suffer from PTSD number in the 100's of thousands. Most of us don't know the name of a single one of those families whose lives have been adversely affected by these lingering conditions. The unemployment figures for the vets are two points higher than for the general population. Over 100 suicides each day across this nation are directly attributile to the war in Iraq. The percentage of vets on drugs is astronomical.

With tax rates the lowest they've been in more than 40 years and the Republican party having taken a pledge to allow no increases one thing is proven. If American society had taken the same kind of stand during the second world war we would all be goose stepping. During my 60 adult years in this country things are worse than ever before. The richest people are in control and see no reason to pay a fair share and definitely will not put on a uniform and fight. Rich people in a military uniform are about as plentiful as hen's teeth.

Every step the Republicans take in Washington are designed for two things. Make the president look bad and protect low tax rates for corporations and the wealthy. Surely there are enough intelligent Americans to see through this. Either that or Newt Gingrich will be annointed in January 2013.

CHEERLEADERS for Terrorists LIKE YOU drug this out 6 years longer, 3,000 more deaths and $600 billion totally unnecessary because YOU TERRORIST CHEERLEADERS encourage the deaths of US troops, 87,000 Iraqis !

YOU LOVED THE US TRoops were killed! YOU cheered when these CHEERLEADERS helped encourage the TERRORISTS...

SADDEST period in American history when US lawmakers CHEER the deaths of US TROOPS!

 

[healthmyths]

America's troops were unnecessarily burdened with what amounts to a war crime.

You hyperbolic lefties have done to the term "war crimes" what you do to so many terms that used to mean something: over use them and misapply them until them become empty slogans devoid of real meaning.

It's not hyperbolic.

The United States attacked a country that did not attack it first. The United States engaged in actions that caused the deaths of well over 100,000 Iraqis.

A) Did you know that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990?
B) DId YOU KNOW that Saddam Agreed to a Cease Fire in 1991 that when he fired on US planes..
CLINTON did this!!!
Timeline Iraq War IRAQ events... time line
In the first three months of 1999, U.S. led-forces bombarded Iraq with 241,000 pounds of bombsjust shy of the 253,000 pounds dropped under President Bush in the eight months leading up to the final UN resolution before the war.
The Raw Story | Clinton bombing of Iraq far exceeded Bush's in run-up to war; Bush 'spikes of activity' questioned
By August of 1999, American and British pilots had fired more than 1,100 missiles against 359 targetsthat year alone.

So when Saddam as these 32 democrats AGREED!!!
BEFORE BUSH!!!

BEFORE BUSH ... When CLINTON was President...
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger- Clinton National. Security. Advisor 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999




Had any other country engaged in those sorts of actions, especially one without Nukes, they'd be in big trouble. And their leaders would be subject to prosecution in the Hague.

WRONG dumb f...k!

Finally were you aware that Saddam murdered 300,000 people?

And PLEASE you fu...king idiot...
WHO KILLED the NOT 100,000 but 87,000 Iraqis???

Do YOU REALLY think Bush did it? Do you think US troops killed those Iraqis?

WHO do you idiots think KILLED THEM??

Dumb f...kls... the Terrorists that people LIKE YOU became CHEERLEADERS!
'

 

[Avatar4321]

The president, ambassador and generals who spoke put up the best appearance possible for the withdrawal of our warriors who were remaining there. This enormous fiasco was started by George W. Bush because he really never had gotten over Saddam Hussein trying to assassinate his father in 1993. The war of choice was funded through emergency spending measures and didn't even show up as budget deficits until Obama declared the tricks were over. The war expenses began to show up as part of the deficit in fy 2010.

Over 1 million of America's young served in that shithole. about 4400 were killed there. About 33,000 were seriously wounded....some triple amputees. Those who suffer from PTSD number in the 100's of thousands. Most of us don't know the name of a single one of those families whose lives have been adversely affected by these lingering conditions. The unemployment figures for the vets are two points higher than for the general population. Over 100 suicides each day across this nation are directly attributile to the war in Iraq. The percentage of vets on drugs is astronomical.

With tax rates the lowest they've been in more than 40 years and the Republican party having taken a pledge to allow no increases one thing is proven. If American society had taken the same kind of stand during the second world war we would all be goose stepping. During my 60 adult years in this country things are worse than ever before. The richest people are in control and see no reason to pay a fair share and definitely will not put on a uniform and fight. Rich people in a military uniform are about as plentiful as hen's teeth.

Every step the Republicans take in Washington are designed for two things. Make the president look bad and protect low tax rates for corporations and the wealthy. Surely there are enough intelligent Americans to see through this. Either that or Newt Gingrich will be annointed in January 2013.

High on talking points, low on facts. all and all a bunch of bull. but I said that already.

 

[frazzledgear]

The president, ambassador and generals who spoke put up the best appearance possible for the withdrawal of our warriors who were remaining there. This enormous fiasco was started by George W. Bush because he really never had gotten over Saddam Hussein trying to assassinate his father in 1993. The war of choice was funded through emergency spending measures and didn't even show up as budget deficits until Obama declared the tricks were over. The war expenses began to show up as part of the deficit in fy 2010.

Over 1 million of America's young served in that shithole. about 4400 were killed there. About 33,000 were seriously wounded....some triple amputees. Those who suffer from PTSD number in the 100's of thousands. Most of us don't know the name of a single one of those families whose lives have been adversely affected by these lingering conditions. The unemployment figures for the vets are two points higher than for the general population. Over 100 suicides each day across this nation are directly attributile to the war in Iraq. The percentage of vets on drugs is astronomical.

With tax rates the lowest they've been in more than 40 years and the Republican party having taken a pledge to allow no increases one thing is proven. If American society had taken the same kind of stand during the second world war we would all be goose stepping. During my 60 adult years in this country things are worse than ever before. The richest people are in control and see no reason to pay a fair share and definitely will not put on a uniform and fight. Rich people in a military uniform are about as plentiful as hen's teeth.

Every step the Republicans take in Washington are designed for two things. Make the president look bad and protect low tax rates for corporations and the wealthy. Surely there are enough intelligent Americans to see through this. Either that or Newt Gingrich will be annointed in January 2013.

I didn't even bother reading the rest of your garbage after the truly IDIOTIC claim it was nothing but revenge for the attempted assassination of his father -and apparently so utterly SOULLESS as to not give a shit how many thousands of Americans may die for it? Are you for real? That in reality says more about people like you than it does about Bush.

I'm positive it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact Saddam Hussein was the second largest financier of international terrorism in the world and a war on terrorism was never winnable with that monster in power financing terrorist attacks while pretending to keep his hands clean in the attacks he would be paying for on US forces. Hell, the man openly paid for terrorist attacks on Israel -but sure, he's going to sit back and just HOPE for the US to lose in Afghanistan without trying to change the outcome to one he preferred? Oh sure, and while we are at it, let's make sure as few Americans as possible know about the fact our own intelligence agencies concluded this same guy paid for the first attack on the WTC -because it is always stunning how few people seem to know that fact. Just like so many like to pretend there was no Iraqi connection to the Oklahoma federal building bombing as well. Although the FBI even knows the NAMES of the Iraqis who assisted in that one. Even investigative REPORTERS know those names and even turned over all their own evidence to the FBI to make sure they knew this stuff. But YOU don't, do you? No doubt you actually want to believe when Saddam Hussein came out on the anniversary of his Kuwait invasion every single year in order to declare Iraq was the biggest enemy of the United States -you thought he was what? Just joshing us along there? Notice he didn't declare the US to be the greatest enemy of Iraq -but that Iraq was the biggest enemy of the United States. But surely he was just joking and he didn't mean anything BAD by it -like the fact even though he was the second largest sponsor of international terrorism on the planet he would never, ever finance any attacks on the nation he declared was his biggest enemy? Are you seriously that short upstairs?

It also had nothing to do with the fact that even though Clinton refused to release the findings of the intelligence investigation into the first World Trade Center bombing until right before he left office - our own intelligence agencies investigation concluded Saddam very likely sponsored that attack. The fact the CIA had picked up on multiple secret meetings between high level Al Qaeda members and high level Iraqi government officials between 1997 and 2003 should have already blown to the hell the stupid liberal claim that Saddam would never work with Muslim extremists but liberals still cling to that one. In spite of the fact he used any group with the same enemy he wanted attacked and never confined himself to just Muslims terrorist groups -he also never avoided using them. In fact under Clinton there were increasingly violent successful Muslim terrorist attacks on US interests on average once every 8-12 months during his entire administration and dozens of thwarted ones. How many are there now? And are the fewer attempts seen today more inept and clumsy or more sophisticated?

Or do you prefer we go back to making sure the people who are confronted by these terrorists are those least likely to survive that confrontation instead of the best trained, best armed, best prepared and most likely to survive. You asshole liberals act like if we had just cried like little girls to the world and played the victim to the hilt -this would have actually CHANGED something. It would -it would have convinced our enemies we really were the weak pussies they said we were weakened by our own immoralities that left us unwilling to bleed and even defend what was ours and therefore even more ripe for more attacks right here at home. Liberals insisted Bush "wasted" the sympathy of the world -"sympathy" that largely disappeared once the US refused to lay down and play girly victim which means it was never real in the first place. (Who the hell sympathizes with the victim of a sucker punch until he gets up and defends himself? WHO DOES THAT?) Laying down and crying doesn't work with schoolyard bullies either although liberals are convinced it will. Playing victim convinces those after you that it will be even easier the next time, not more difficult. In case you really didn't know that. Our very real enemies declared war on us years before and it took 9/11 to take that declaration seriously. They don't want to continue until we cry like babies -they want us dead and have said unlike the US, they don't have an arbitrarily imposed timetable where they will just give up if it doesn't happen by then.

I'm sure you are among those liberals totally puzzled about why such a significant percentage of Americans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. Notice when the wording was changed to believing there was PROOF of his involvement, it dropped way off which is why people were not polled with that wording. It didn't support liberal contention about the "stupid" people. There were people who knew there was no courtroom PROOF he was involved -but their own personal opinion that he was. Any REAL clue why people actually believed he might be involved or are you SUCH a political ideologue and total tool you can't possibly let INFORMATION through that has significant relevance on reality and you have a burning need to allow nothing but your personal political ideology dictate what is and is not reality? I have bad, bad news for you -liberals and their liberal ideology don't own "truth" and they sure as hell don't own reality. Everyone in the Bush administration used the identical curious wording when it came to Iraq and 9/11. They all said the same thing -there was no PROOF Saddam Hussein was behind that attack. There rarely is PROOF someone sponsored a terrorist attack by a third party -its the whole point of attacking someone that way -but it is also a fact that was exactly how Saddam attacked his enemies -at times even OPENLY paying terrorists to attack his enemy and no one is more reliable for that than paying someone who considers themselves to be their enemy as well. So I'm sure it also had nothing to do with the fact that while the Bush administration said there was no PROOF Saddam Hussein also sponsored 9/11 -there is in reality REAMS of evidence at the very least he knew about it in advance -unlike all other rulers in the region. And having advanced knowledge of an impending attack certainly implies a relationship with those planning to carry it out, doesn't it? US standards of courtroom proof beyond a reasonable doubt is NEVER required before a nation may take actions to defend itself from a threat and there was plenty of evidence Saddam Hussein was and intended to remain a significant threat to the US. Beyond that evidence are the inexplicable behaviors of the man that go a long way in adding to the support of that evidence. Not the least of which is the fact that Hussein went into hiding shortly before 9/11 and didn't come out again until dragged from that hole nearly three years later -even though there was absolutely nothing going on anywhere to explain his decision to go into hiding and disappearing from public view. And let's not forget -Hussein only went into hiding ONE other time in the 30+ years he was a dictator thug. And that was on the eve of the Gulf War. His decision to go into hiding shortly before 9/11 certainly indicates the guy knew something was coming -and feared the US would lay blame for it right on him. Especially since many of the same people he paid to bomb the World Trade Center the first time were involved this time too and even if it was largely ignored by our liberal media, it wouldn't be by our President. Not exactly the rational act of an innocent person, is it? And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to evidence he may have been involved.

Simple and MORONIC "reasons" about why the decision to also go to war with Hussein was made and put the lives of thousands and thousands and thousands of Americans at risk for something the Bush family had already been consulted with by Clinton about the best response and had AGREED with his decision not to respond with an attack much less declare an all out war over it in the first place -can only make sense to the moronic simpletons who totally lack critical thinking skills. I have no respect for people like you because you don't deserve it after making such a stupid comment about something that in reality is the most difficult thing for any President to do -NONE of whom without exception ever take it lightly. People like you bent over backwards to give every benefit of the doubt to a proven pathological lying ass mass murdering thug when he deserved none at all over Bush -and did so for no reason but the fact he had an "R" after his name and would NEVER have made such asinine accusations if he had a "D". YOU know it, I know it - and so does everyone else on this forum.

When Bush first went to Congress and gave his reasons for requesting Congressional authority, he listed so many liberals went batshit CRAZY insisting he had so many reasons it was actually "proof" he had none at all. But one of those reasons was NOT the fact he had weapons of mass destruction -lots of countries we wish didn't have them do. It was the fact he had already proven himself willing to use them since he had used them on his own people. Bush rightly feared in addition to fighting an enemy in Afghanistan, the thug who apparently knew in advance about the attack and proved himself willing to use WMD and as the 2nd largest financier of international terrorism in the world - meant our forces would be facing an enemy in Afghanistan as well as any being financed by Saddam who also had a higher risk of slipping them a few WMD on the way. What would have been your response of Bush ignoring the intelligence he had that YOU never did regarding the suspicious activity of Saddam and the certainty he would at the very least sponsor attacks on US forces in Afghanistan with the very real possibility of giving those terrorists WMD to do it -and he let it happen instead of making the hard decision to make sure it couldn't? Oh wow, another fine opportunity to rip him to shreds for NOT acting with far more specific intelligence about Saddam than ever existed about 9/11 itself. You dumb liberals still like to insist Bush knew stuff NONE of our own intelligence agencies knew and SINGLE-HANDEDLY could have prevented 9/11 ..........if he had only ACTED on totally non-existent intelligence, right? But on the far more specific and detailed FACTS about the 2nd largest financier of international terrorism in the world? THAT requires waiting until thousands and thousands of US civilians are killed again -and ONLY if there is courtroom PROOF, right? Otherwise the dude gets another free pass to just keep right on doing it, right? The fact the UN inspectors had one damning report after another about the lies and their final report based on documentation indicated they had only discovered 1/4 of his stockpiles PLUS the fact the UN inspectors had not yet destroyed all the weapons they had discovered and had been forced to leave them intact when they were kicked out in 1998 -only a lying ass liberal would claim that was "proof" he had none at all. Oh but SURE it makes sense to a liberal that only when no one was looking THEN he got rid of them, right? EVERY nation on the planet knew he had WMD and not ONE came out insisting otherwise because everyone's intelligence was the same on it. And the fact the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were poisoned with the products of mustard gas and the remnants of the RECENTLY destroyed weapons UN inspectors had left behind were found in Pakistan and even Iraqi defectors had the identical stories about WMD being quickly shuttled off to Syria and their exact locations -tells you exactly what he did with them once he realized how much "support" from leftists he would lose if caught with the weapons he claimed he didn't have. His decision to get rid of the WMD was probably one of the best decisions he made and even after his death and decades of mass murdering of hundreds of thousands -look what liberals talk about the most along with claiming it was all about "revenge" for a failed attempt to kill a former President. Waterboarding. Something that literally THOUSANDS of US soldiers have had to endure as part of their training FOR YEARS but only three terrorists did. We hired the Brits to both teach it and waterboard our own soldiers -by the thousands. Don't you find it interesting its called "training" when done to OUR soldiers -but "torture" if done to anyone but a US soldier? I'd rather lose a limb than be a liberal.

Unless you have convincing evidence things would have turned out even BETTER for the US and the war on terror if the 2nd largest financier were left in power so he could keep right on with it (which is provably would have been far worse for the US if he were in power) -you are trying to have the best of both worlds where you get to damn Bush no matter which way he went on it. And getting into a position so liberals could do EXACTLY that was really their goal all along.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I am pleased and proud of the actions, and restraint shown by my Country tword Saddam and Iraq. Watching anti-Americans trying to convince others that sucess is actually failure is a constant source of low humor.

 

[Sallow]

You hyperbolic lefties have done to the term "war crimes" what you do to so many terms that used to mean something: over use them and misapply them until them become empty slogans devoid of real meaning.

It's not hyperbolic.

The United States attacked a country that did not attack it first. The United States engaged in actions that caused the deaths of well over 100,000 Iraqis.

A) Did you know that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990?
B) DId YOU KNOW that Saddam Agreed to a Cease Fire in 1991 that when he fired on US planes..
CLINTON did this!!!
Timeline Iraq War IRAQ events... time line
In the first three months of 1999, U.S. led-forces bombarded Iraq with 241,000 pounds of bombsjust shy of the 253,000 pounds dropped under President Bush in the eight months leading up to the final UN resolution before the war.
The Raw Story | Clinton bombing of Iraq far exceeded Bush's in run-up to war; Bush 'spikes of activity' questioned
By August of 1999, American and British pilots had fired more than 1,100 missiles against 359 targetsthat year alone.

So when Saddam as these 32 democrats AGREED!!!
BEFORE BUSH!!!

BEFORE BUSH ... When CLINTON was President...
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger- Clinton National. Security. Advisor 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999




Had any other country engaged in those sorts of actions, especially one without Nukes, they'd be in big trouble. And their leaders would be subject to prosecution in the Hague.

WRONG dumb f...k!

Finally were you aware that Saddam murdered 300,000 people?

And PLEASE you fu...king idiot...
WHO KILLED the NOT 100,000 but 87,000 Iraqis???

Do YOU REALLY think Bush did it? Do you think US troops killed those Iraqis?

WHO do you idiots think KILLED THEM??

Dumb f...kls... the Terrorists that people LIKE YOU became CHEERLEADERS!
'

Well, first off the Baathists didn't murder 300,000 people. You seem to have erased quite a bit of history. Iraq has been to war several times..and almost every time..they've been the patsy of the US.

The Iraq Iran war was egged on by this country. In fact, Iraq was supplied by the US with the very chemical weapons that killed a great deal of the 300K people.

Next up..was Saddam Hussien was personally given the green light by April Glaspie to invade Kuwait...then told to leave..and that did it. That little bit green lighted the first pounded Iraq took by the US.

Second up..was Clinton..who needed some distraction from his Monica fling. So not only did he bomb Iraq..he pasted them with some withering sanctions. That killed a good 100K or so..

Finally up..to bring it home..was GW Bush.

And boy what fun he had!

There were NO Terrorists in Iraq..short bread.

 

[rdean]

The president, ambassador and generals who spoke put up the best appearance possible for the withdrawal of our warriors who were remaining there. This enormous fiasco was started by George W. Bush because he really never had gotten over Saddam Hussein trying to assassinate his father in 1993. The war of choice was funded through emergency spending measures and didn't even show up as budget deficits until Obama declared the tricks were over. The war expenses began to show up as part of the deficit in fy 2010.

Over 1 million of America's young served in that shithole. about 4400 were killed there. About 33,000 were seriously wounded....some triple amputees. Those who suffer from PTSD number in the 100's of thousands. Most of us don't know the name of a single one of those families whose lives have been adversely affected by these lingering conditions. The unemployment figures for the vets are two points higher than for the general population. Over 100 suicides each day across this nation are directly attributile to the war in Iraq. The percentage of vets on drugs is astronomical.

With tax rates the lowest they've been in more than 40 years and the Republican party having taken a pledge to allow no increases one thing is proven. If American society had taken the same kind of stand during the second world war we would all be goose stepping. During my 60 adult years in this country things are worse than ever before. The richest people are in control and see no reason to pay a fair share and definitely will not put on a uniform and fight. Rich people in a military uniform are about as plentiful as hen's teeth.

Every step the Republicans take in Washington are designed for two things. Make the president look bad and protect low tax rates for corporations and the wealthy. Surely there are enough intelligent Americans to see through this. Either that or Newt Gingrich will be annointed in January 2013.

And Republicans feel it wasn't nearly enough and want to stay for years more. Don't ask me why. Even they can't tell us. They have no reason and no logic.

 

[KissMy]

Obama handed Iraq over to BP.

BP’s new 20-year “deal” to control Iraq’s largest oil field, which produces about half of Iraq’s total oil output.

The key part of the contract, which was unknown until this leak, reveals that BP will still get paid even if there is any disruption in the very ambitious level of output they have called for, some 3 million barrels per day within the next three years.

As the contract reads, “the parties shall agree in good faith a mechanism to fully compensate [BP] contractor as soon as practicable, which may include, among other things, a revised field production schedule or an extension to the term or payment of lost income in respect of the estimated volumes not produced during the period.”

“Iraq’s oil auctions were portrayed as a model of transparency and a negotiating victory for the Iraqi government. Now we see the reality was the opposite: a backroom deal that gave BP a stranglehold on the Iraqi economy, and even influence over the decisions of Opec…. The changes that took place behind closed doors at first look like technical details. But look more closely and you see their real meaning: BP, not the Iraqi government, will effectively control future rates of production. This gives the company a stranglehold on the Iraqi economy.”

 

[9thIDdoc]

"There were NO Terrorists in Iraq..short bread."

Saddam WAS a terrorist, bragged about financing other terrorists, and even had a jehad thingy added to their Iraqi flag.
No sympathy for terrorists or their supporters here.

 

[hortysir]

You hyperbolic lefties have done to the term "war crimes" what you do to so many terms that used to mean something: over use them and misapply them until them become empty slogans devoid of real meaning.

They hate America.. go figure.

This ain't America. The real America is one where everybody makes a little sacrifice. Right now the Republican Right is laying on their ass and doing nothing. If they can't fight and they aren't a rocket scientist they should at least be paying a heavy tax burden. Dwight Eisenhower...a Republican president saw tax rates where anyone earning more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess to the government. This bunch of entitled pricks have Washington in their pockets and don't intend to contribute a goddamed thing if they can find a way around it.

After all....George W. Bush and his cabinet told a thousand lies to support going into an unnecessary war.

It's hard for the Loony-Left to "sacrifice" with their hands out

 

[Unkotare]

It's not hyperbolic.

The United States attacked a country that did not attack it first. The United States engaged in actions that caused the deaths of well over 100,000 Iraqis.

A) Did you know that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990?
B) DId YOU KNOW that Saddam Agreed to a Cease Fire in 1991 that when he fired on US planes..
CLINTON did this!!!
Timeline Iraq War IRAQ events... time line
In the first three months of 1999, U.S. led-forces bombarded Iraq with 241,000 pounds of bombsjust shy of the 253,000 pounds dropped under President Bush in the eight months leading up to the final UN resolution before the war.
The Raw Story | Clinton bombing of Iraq far exceeded Bush's in run-up to war; Bush 'spikes of activity' questioned
By August of 1999, American and British pilots had fired more than 1,100 missiles against 359 targetsthat year alone.

So when Saddam as these 32 democrats AGREED!!!
BEFORE BUSH!!!

BEFORE BUSH ... When CLINTON was President...
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger- Clinton National. Security. Advisor 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999




Had any other country engaged in those sorts of actions, especially one without Nukes, they'd be in big trouble. And their leaders would be subject to prosecution in the Hague.

WRONG dumb f...k!

Finally were you aware that Saddam murdered 300,000 people?

And PLEASE you fu...king idiot...
WHO KILLED the NOT 100,000 but 87,000 Iraqis???

Do YOU REALLY think Bush did it? Do you think US troops killed those Iraqis?

WHO do you idiots think KILLED THEM??

Dumb f...kls... the Terrorists that people LIKE YOU became CHEERLEADERS!
'

Well, first off the Baathists didn't murder 300,000 people. You seem to have erased quite a bit of history. Iraq has been to war several times..and almost every time..they've been the patsy of the US.

The Iraq Iran war was egged on by this country. In fact, Iraq was supplied by the US with the very chemical weapons that killed a great deal of the 300K people.

Next up..was Saddam Hussien was personally given the green light by April Glaspie to invade Kuwait...then told to leave..and that did it. That little bit green lighted the first pounded Iraq took by the US.

Second up..was Clinton..who needed some distraction from his Monica fling. So not only did he bomb Iraq..he pasted them with some withering sanctions. That killed a good 100K or so..

Finally up..to bring it home..was GW Bush.

And boy what fun he had!

There were NO Terrorists in Iraq..short bread.

democrats = apologists for tyrants and terrorists (not to mention being outright liars) whenever it may be politically expedient

 

[Cowman]

People need to stop and think about the casualties involved. If you're one of those people who don't care about casualties of non-Americans, then think about the casualties of Americans.

Think about the thousands of people who died on 9/11. Then think about the thousands more who were sent to their demise.

Please waste your beautiful mind on something like that.

I think about it. I think about it a lot. I voted for the continuation of the war when I elected Bush for his second Term when I first became eligible to vote. I live with that decision.

 

[Contumacious]

WRONG dumb f...k!

Finally were you aware that Saddam murdered 300,000 people?

And PLEASE you fu...king idiot...
WHO KILLED the NOT 100,000 but 87,000 Iraqis???

Do YOU REALLY think Bush did it? Do you think US troops killed those Iraqis?

WHO do you idiots think KILLED THEM??

Dumb f...kls... the Terrorists that people LIKE YOU became CHEERLEADERS!
'

Well, first off the Baathists didn't murder 300,000 people. You seem to have erased quite a bit of history. Iraq has been to war several times..and almost every time..they've been the patsy of the US.

The Iraq Iran war was egged on by this country. In fact, Iraq was supplied by the US with the very chemical weapons that killed a great deal of the 300K people.

Next up..was Saddam Hussien was personally given the green light by April Glaspie to invade Kuwait...then told to leave..and that did it. That little bit green lighted the first pounded Iraq took by the US.

Second up..was Clinton..who needed some distraction from his Monica fling. So not only did he bomb Iraq..he pasted them with some withering sanctions. That killed a good 100K or so..

Finally up..to bring it home..was GW Bush.

And boy what fun he had!

There were NO Terrorists in Iraq..short bread.

democrats = apologists for tyrants and terrorists (not to mention being outright liars) whenever it may be politically expedient

repugnants = apologists for war criminals , warmongers and imperialists

.