View Single Post
Old 09-28-2004, 01:41 PM   #35 (permalink)
host
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paq
on oreilly last night, bush said he was giving the speech as a "Thank you" to all the troops and that he would do it again. He said he would take any opportunity to thank the troops for their service.
If Bush really understood and thought through the sacrifce that he set the troops up for when, as Commander-In-Chief, he ordered them (and continues
ordering them) to "serve" in Iraq, the only just way to "thank them" and to
honor their service, is to only send them into harm's way when it is absolutely
necessary. To order these troops into service that leads to their deaths in a
war that was pre-ordained at least since his first cabinet meeting in 2001,
and then to feign that it is still a necessary and justified war after the 9-11
commission and the weapon's inspectors' reports, is an outrage,

Our American families have paid a cost so far of 1050 dead, several thousand
more grievously wounded and permanently disabled, and more than
$100 billion dollars.....for what ? I hear the same platitudes that politicians
30 years ago used to explain away the deaths of 58,000 American troops
in a war to defend the Viet Namese people from a brutal dictatorship.
The majority in this country decided 30 years ago that such a noble mission
to protect a foreign people from oppressive dictatorship did not meet the
criteria of meeting the "absolutely necessary" criteria required to order our
troops into harm's way. Bush personally avoided putting himself in harms way
back then, yet he has the gall and the hypocricy to order other's sons and
daughters into harm's way now.

In his zeal to go to war, Bush did not even consider waiting until the UN
weapons inspectors, who asked for more time to complete their inspections
in early 2003. He did not follow the direction of congress (that Kerry voted
for) to exhaust efforts to seek a UN resolution authorizing an invasion of
Iraq. Bush promised to go to the UN one last time before going to war, and
then did not do so. He failed to build a coalition that conceivably would
have resulted in troops from other countries standing in for the 90 percent
American force that ended up in Iraq. If Bush's rush to war cost one additional American life than would have been lost if he had expended the
effort he promised the country in going to the UN on last time, after agreeing
to give the UN inspectors the additional time they had asked for, dead
Americans and Iraqis would still be alive.

If you allowed yourself a less parochial and partisan mindset, would you not
have asked yourself (it's still not too late !) why Bush, so soon after the
shocking 9-11 attacks, with a supportive and empathetic attitude still
permeating the diplomatic atmosphere of the western world; Bush.....the
son of a recent U.S. president who, only 12 years before had assembled a
broad consensus among nations and a coalition of troops to fight a war
against the very same enemy, could not obtain approval from the UN to
invade Iraq, or to build a coalition anywhere near the size and scope of the
one his father had assembled, maybe you would at least consider that the
evidence to justify an invasion of Iraq was not convincing enough to persuade our former Gulf War coalition allies to join us, and the words of
Bush's father, (which he admits giving no consideration to) were too strong
to ignore:

‘‘We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq,’’ Bush wrote. ‘‘The coalition would have instantly collapsed. ... Going in and thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.
‘‘Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.’’

So, now what ? We will pull out of Iraq in failure, just as we did in Viet Nam.
How many more American troops will die so that politicians like Bush, as
Nixon and Johnson before him, can attempt to "save face" ? I think that
1,050 is quite enough, but I doubt that Bush or his apologists can quickly
come to my conclusion. They will, inevitably order thousands of other American families' children to fight and die in Iraq before they will conclude the obvious and retreat from their failed imperialistic expedition!
host is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360