Speech from Majority Leader Tom DeLay

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Nov 10, 2003.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    November 4 , 2003

    Two days ago in Iraq, the United States lost 15 soldiers in a missile attack on an Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter. Twenty more American servicemen were wounded. All on board were heading to Baghdad, on their way to the airport and a well-deserved break from combat service. Today, we all mourn their loss, and offer our heartfelt prayers for the victims and their families.

    But, Mr. Speaker, we will not run. The United States will stay in Iraq — along with our coalition partners — until the work there is done . Until innocent Iraqis are no longer threatened by thuggish holdovers from the old regime; Until state-sponsored murderers from neighboring countries no longer enter Iraq to terrorize its people; Until the citizens of Iraq have a democratic government to set their own course among the free nations of the earth . And until the nexus of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, and outlaw regimes can no longer threaten the United States from Iraq. These things — these long overdue and wonderful things — are going to happen.

    Let there be no mistaking in this or any capitol around the globe: justice is coming to the Middle East, with hope and freedom riding close behind. We have always known that delivering these basic human rights to a region unfamiliar with them will be hard, but that is our mission — and one worth the sacrifice.

    Just as it has been since we began debating the removal of Saddam Hussein from Iraq, this war remains a test of America's moral leadership in the world.
    Are we serious about destroying international terrorism? Are we serious about holding outlaw regimes accountable for their sponsorship of it? Are we resolved to see our mission through to the end, despite the disproportionate costs and risks we must assume? And finally, is human freedom worth fighting for?

    The answer to all of these, of course, is yes.

    And so, we will not run. No matter how perilous our journey, we will stand and fight. And humanity will win. Iraq will be free. Terrorism will fall. Evil will be turned back. And the Chinook 15, Mr. Speaker, will not have died in vain.
     
  2. SLClemens
    Online

    SLClemens Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I wonder if Mr. DeLay would be speaking so wishfully if he had children flying around Iraq in Chinooks. I'm sure many politicians from the comfort of Washington expressed similar sentiment in the late 60s when several US helicopters a week were going down in Vietnam. Well, sorry, but those guys died in vain. If the 'Chinook 15' are not to have died in vain I would suggest that Mr. Delay seriously start to look at a role for the UN in Iraq.
     
  3. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Are you insinuating only those with loved ones in Iraq can speak out?

    I stated in another thread that our soldiers joined the military to defend our country and the reply I received was that they "did enlist to fight the war on terror knowing full well there was much talk of going into Iraq". So the soldiers apparently knew what they were getting into and went anyway. Do you think they were aware that there would be deaths? And if so, why did they choose to enlist anyway? So I DO think the soldiers find 'worth' in the fight for freedom in Iraq, even if it means some will give their lives to do so.
     
  4. SLClemens
    Online

    SLClemens Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I could be making a faulty generalization, but it does seem to me that those in favor of the invasion and occupation without loved ones there are more open to expending soldiers' blood and months of their lives in pursuit of vague ideals and basically unplanned strategies than those who have loved ones there or who might get called up.
     
  5. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Those who get called up? Doesn't that go against what you said earlier, that a lot joined knowing they would most likely be going to Iraq?

    I think on an overall scale you are correct. Naturally, those with loved ones involved in war are going to want them to return as soon as possible. I don't think they look at it as expending their lives, or not wanting to be there. Why did they join the military then? Every soldier who joins knows the risks involved and the possibility of war. They go forward anyway wanting to assist America. It's doubtful they are anit-war or anti-Iraq.
     
  6. SLClemens
    Online

    SLClemens Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm speaking more of their families than themselves. And while a lot of soldiers seemed very eager to fight in the invasion, not that many seem so eager to be part of the occupation, oddly enough.
     
  7. Bry
    Offline

    Bry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +3
    I tend to think that most people who join the military just want a job or to pay for college. Those who enter for the "ideals" which the military represents are probably in the minority, or at least the "ideal" are a secondary priority.

    I haven't seen any numbers, but has anyone else seen if more people started applying to join the army since the war appeared on the horizon?
     
  8. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Maybe we can ask SLClemens where he got his data from.

    "But some of them most certainly did enlist to fight the war on terror knowing full well there was much talk of going into Iraq."
     
  9. RMW
    Online

    RMW Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I find Mr. Delay's speech very disturbing for a number of reasons.

    First, he implies the uprising in Iraq is due to " thuggish holdovers from the old regime." Yet, political analysts at the University of Baghdad have evidence which shows the insurgents are from across the Iraqi political/religious spectrum, not just Baathists. In fact, the Iraqi people seem to be growing increasingly distrustful of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team, and this distrust deepened when Bush put Iraqi assets up for sale, without the consent of the people. Bush has no right to do this, and Americans should be outraged.

    And that leads into the line about " Until the citizens of Iraq have a democratic government to set their own course among the free nations of the earth."

    To the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team, democracy and freedom mean nothing less than imposing their far-right-wing economic ideology, a most radical form of 'free' market theory and social policies, onto the backs of the Iraqi people. These same privatization, deregulation, ‘free' trade restructuring policies have devastated Russia as well as the majority of the Third-World people upon whom they've been imposed by the IMF and World bank for the past 50 years. That is why peasants are uprising against the IMF, World Bank, 'free' trade, which is not free at all, and US interference. Only the supra-rich businesses and their political allies get rich.

    Next, Mr. Delay mentions coalition partners, but we basically have no partners. We could have partners, but George Bush refuses to give up economic control of Iraq, and that should make everyone suspicious. As it is billions of American taxpayer dollars directed to Iraq cannot be accounted for, and billions from the Iraq Oil for food fund are likewise missing.

    Third, terrorists did not exist in Iraq before the Bush team failed to secure post-Saddam Iraq. This catastrophic failure was the direct result of arrogance and haste. Anyone with expert knowledge about what to expect and how to prepare were either retired or fired. Rumsfeld tired to run the operation as a partly privatized affair, leaving our soldiers without water, decent food, and sufficient equipment.

    Despite our obligations to Iraq, someone should remind Mr. Delay and Geroge Bush that we did not elect them to define our morality for us. This is not a monarchy, where the King sets the morality and the people are sent into battle for it.

    If they're really such moral beings, than they'd allow the Iraqi people to determine their own economic and socia destiny. They'd concede economic control of Iraq to the UN; and work with Germany and France and other allies to assist Iraq in building its government and its future. These guys failed and we shouldn't leave the future of Iraq or the US solely in their hands.

    RitaW
    Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
     
  10. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    ???????????? PLEASE tell me you don't truly believe this? Iraq was a hornets nest for terrorists LONG before Saddam was removed.
     

Share This Page